BANCROFT    LIBRARY 


Price  10  Cents. 


SPEECH 


OF    THE 


HON.    W.   H.    SEWAKD, 


THE   ADMISSION  OF 


CALIFORNIA, 


AND    THE    SUBJECT   OF 


SLAVEKT; 


1  DELIVERED    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES    SENATE,    ON   MONDAY, 

MARCH  11,   1850. 


BOSTON: 
REDDING    &    COMPANY. 

1850. 


SPEECH 


OF    THE 


HON.   W.   H.    SEWARD, 


ON   THE   ADMISSION   OP 


CALIFORNIA, 


AND    THE   SUBJECT   OP 


SLAVERY; 


DELIVERED   IN   THE   UNITED    STATES    SENATE,    ON    MONDAY, 

MARCH  11,  isso. 


BOSTON: 

REDDING    &    COMPANY 
1850. 


n 


X 


BOSTON  PRINTERS'  PROTECTIVE  UNION. 


nin 

. 


SPEECH, 


Mr.  SEWARD  having  the  floor,  rose  and  said : 

Mr.  PRESIDENT  :  Four  years  ago,  California,  scarcely  inhabited  and  quite 
unexplored,  was  unknown  even  to  our  usually  immoderate  desires,  except  by 
a  harbor,  capacious  and  tranquil,  which  only  statesmen  then  foresaw  would 
be  useful  in  the  Oriental  commerce  of  a  far  distant  if  not  merely  chimerical 
future. 

A  year  ago,  California  was  a  mere  military  dependency  of  our  own,  and  we 
were  celebrating,  with  enthusiasm  and  unanimity,  its  acquisition,  with  its  new 
ly  discovered  but  yet  untold  and  untouched  mineral  wealth,  as  the  most  aus 
picious  of  many  and  unparalleled  achievements. 

To-day,  California  is  a  State,  more  populous  than  the  least,  and  richer  than 
several  of  the  greatest  of  our  thirty  States.  This  same  California,  thus  rich 
and  populous,  is  here  asking  admission  into  the  Union,  and  finds  us  debating 
the  dissolution  of  the  Union  itself.  No  wonder  if  we  are  perplexed  with  ever 
changing  embarrassments  ;  no  wonder  if  we  are  appalled  by  ever  increasing 
responsibilities !  No  wonder  if  we  are  bewildered  by  the  ever  augmenting 
magnitude  and  rapidity  of  national  vicissitudes ! 

SHALL  CALIFORNIA  BE 'RECEIVED  ? 

For  myself,  upon  my  individual  judgment  and  conscience,  I  answer,  Yes ! 
For  myself,  as  an  instructed  Representative  of  one  of  the  States,  of  that  one, 
even,  of  the  States  which  ist  soonest  and  longest  to  be  pressed  into  com 
mercial  and  political  rivalry  by  the  new  Commonwealth,  I  answer,  Yes  !  Let 
California  come  in.  Every  new  State,  whether  she  comes  from  the  east  or 
from  the  west,  coming  from  whatever  part  of  the  continent  she  may,  is  always 
welcome.  But  California,  that  comes  from  the  clime  where  the  West  dies 
away  into  ihe  rising  East — California,  which  bounds  at  once  the  Empire  and  the 
Continent, — California,  the  youthful  Queen  of  the  Pacific,  in  her  robes  of 
Freedom,  gorgeously  inlaid  with  gold, — is  doubly  welcome. 

And  now,  I  inquire,  FIRST,  Why  should  California  be  rejected  ?  All  the 
objections  are  founded  only  in  the  circumstances  of  her  coming,  and  in  the 
organic  law  which  she  presents  for  our  confirmation. 

First,  California  comes  unceremoniously,  without  a  preliminary  consent  of 
Congress,  and  therefore  by  usurpation.  This  allegation,  I  think,  is  not  quite 
true — at  least  not  quite  true  in  spirit.  California  is  not  here  of  her  own  pure 
volition.  We  tore  California  violently  from  her  place  in  the  confederation  of 
Mexican  States,  and  stipulated  by  the  treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo,  that  the 
Territory  should  be  admitted,  by  States,  into  the  American  Union  as  speedily 
as  possible. 

But  the  letter  of  the  objection  still  holds ;  California  did  come  without  a  pre 
liminary  consent  by  Congress  to  form  a  Constitution.  But  Michigan  and  other 
States  presented  themselves  in  the  same  unauthorized  way,  and  Congress 
waived  the  irregularity,  and  sanctioned  the  usurpation.  California  pleads  these 
precedents.  Is  not  the  plea  sufficient  ? 

But  it  has  been  said  by  the  Hon.  Senator  from  South  Carolina,  (Mr.  Cal- 
houn)  that  the  ordinance  of  1787  secured  to  Michigan  the  right  to  become  a 
State  when  she  should  have  sixty  thousand  inhabitants.  Owing  to  some  neg- 


lect  Congress  delayed  to  take  the  census ;  and  this  is  said  in  palliation  of  the  irre 
gularity  in  the  case  of  Michigan.  But  California,  as  has  been  seen,  had  a 
treaty,  and  Congress,  instead  of  giving  her  the  customary  territorial  govern 
ment,  as  they  did  to  Michigan,  failed  to  do  either,  and  thus  practically  refused 
both,  and  so  abandoned  the  new  community,  under  most  unpropitious  circum 
stances,  to  anarchy.  California  then  made  a  Constitution  for  herself;  but  not 
unnecessarily  and  presumptuously,  as  did  Michigan.  She  made  a  Constitution 
for  herself,  and  came  here  under  the  law — the  paramount  law  of  self-preser 
vation.  I  think  she  stands  justified. 

Indeed,  California  is  more  than  justified.  She  was  a  Colony — a  military 
Colony,  All  Colonies,  especially  military  Colonies,  are  incongruous  with  our 
political  system,  and  they  are  equally  open  to  corruption  and  exposed  to  op 
pression.  They  are  therefore  not  more  unfortunate  in  their  own  proper  con 
dition  than  fruitful  in  dangers  to  the  parent  Democracy.  California,  then, 
acted  wisely  and  well  in  establishing  self-government.  She  deserves  not  re 
buke,  but  praise  and  approbation. 

Nor  does  this  objection  come  with  a  good  grace  from  those  who  offer  it.  If 
California  were  now  content  to  receive  only  a  Territorial  Charter,  we  could 
not  agree  to  grant  it  without  an  inhibition  of  Slavery,  which  in  that  case,  be 
ing  a  federal  act  of  federal  authority,  would  render  the  attitude  of  California 
as  a  Territory  even  more  offensive  to  those  who  now  repel  her  than  she  is  as 
a  State  with  the  same  inhibition  in  the  Constitution  of  her  own  voluntary 
choice. 

The  second  objection  is,  that  California  has  assigned  her  own  boundaries, 
without  the  previous  authority  of  Congress.  But  she  was  left  to  organize  her 
self,  without  any  boundaries  fixed  by  previous  law,  or  by  prescription.  She 
was  obliged,  therefore,  to  assume  boundaries,  since  without  boundaries  she 
must  have  remained  unorganized. 

A  third  objection  is,  that  California  is  too  large.  I  answer:  first,  there  is  no 
common  standard  of  the  size  of  States.  California,  though  greater  than  many, 
is  less  than  one  of  the  States.  Second,  California,  if  too  large,  may  be  divided 
with  her  own  consent,  and  that  is  all  the  security  we  have  for  reducing  the  mag 
nitude  and  averting  the  preponderance  of  Texas.  Thirdly,  the  boundaries  of 
California  seem  not  at  all  unnatural.  The  Territory  circumscribed  is  alto 
gether  contiguous  and  compact.  Fourth,  the  boundaries  are  convenient.  They 
embrace  only  inhabited  portions  of  the  country,  commercially  connected  with 
the  port  of  San  Francisco.  No  one  has  pretended  to  offer  boundaries  more 
in  harmony  with  the  physical  outlines  of  the  region  concerned,  or  more  con 
venient  for  civil  administration. 

But  to  draw  closer  to  the  question.  What  shall  be  the  boundaries  of  a  new 
State,  concerns,  first,  the  State  herself,  (and  California  of  course  is  content.) 
Secondly,  adjacent  communities.  Orgeon  does  not  complain  of  encroachment, 
and  there  is  no  other  adjacent  community  to  complain.  Thirdly,  the  other 
States  of  the  Union.  The  larger  the  Pacific  States,  the  smaller  will  be  their  rela 
tive  power  in  the  Senate.  All  the  States  now  here  are  Atlantic  States  and  In 
land  States  ;  and  surely  they  may  well  indulge  California  in  the  largest  liberty 
of  boundaries. 

The  fourth  objection  to  the  admission  of  California  is,  that  no  previous  cen 
sus  had  been  taken  and  no  laws  prescribing  the  qualification  of  Suffrage,  and 
the  Apportionment  of  Representatives  in  Convention,  existed.  I  answer,  Cali 
fornia  was  left  to  act  abinitio.  She  must  begin  some  time  without  a  census  and 
without  such  laws.  The  Pilgrim  Fathers  began  in  the  same  way  on  board 
the  May-Flower :  and  since  it  is  objected  that  some  of  the  electors  in  Califor 
nia  may  have  been  aliens,  I  add  that  all  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  were  aliens  and 
strangers  to  the  Commonwealth  of  Plymouth. 

Again,  the  objection  may  well  be  received  if  the  Constitution  of  California 
is  satisfactory — first,  to  herself,  and  secondly,  to  the  United  States.  As  re 
gards  the  first  of  these,  not  a  murmur  of  discontent  has  followed  California  to 
this  place ;  and  as  to  ourselves,  we  confine  our  inquiries  about  the  Constitution 
with  a  view  to  four  things :  First,  the  boundaries  assumed ;  and  I  have  con- 


sidered  that  point  in  this  case  already.  Second,  that  the  domain  in  this  State  is 
secured  to  us  ;  and  it  is  admitted  that  this  has  been  done,  properly  done.  Third, 
that  the  Constitution  shall  be  Republican,  and  not  aristocratic  or  monarchical. 
In  this  case  the  only  objection  is  that  the  Constitution,  inasmuch  as  it  inhibits 
Slavery,  is  altogether  too  Republican.  Fourth,  that  the  Representation 
claimed  shall  be  just  and  equal.  No  one  denies  that  the  population  of  Califor 
nia  is  sufficient  to  demand  two  Representatives  on  the  federal  basis ;  and 
secondly,  a  new  census  is  at  hand,  and  the  error,  if  there  be  one,  will  be  im 
mediately  corrected. 

The  fifth  objection  is,  that  California  comes  under  Executive  influences — 
first,  in  her  coming  as  a  Free  State,  and  second,  in  her  coming  at  all.  The 
first  charge  rests  on  suspicion  only — is  peremptorily  denied,  and  the  denial  is 
not  controverted  by  proofs.  I  dismiss  it  altogether.  The  second  is  true  to  the 
extent  that  the  present  President  advised  the  People  of  California  that,  hav 
ing  been  left  without  any  civil  government,  under  the  military  supervision  of 
the  Executive,  without  any  authority  of  law  whatever,  the  adoption  of  a  Con 
stitution  subject  to  the  approval  of  Congress  would  be  regarded  favorably  by 
the  President. 

Only  a  year  ago  it  was  complained  that  the  exercise  of  the  military  power 
to  maintain  law  and  order  in  California  was  a  fearful  innovation ;  but  now  the 
wind  has  changed,  and  blows  even  stronger  from  the  opposite  quarter.  May 
this  Republic  never  have  a  President  commit  a  more  serious  or  more  danger- 
pus  usurpation  of  power  than  the  act  of  the  present  eminent  Chief  Magistrate 
in  endeavoring  to  induce  the  legislative  authorities  to  relieve  him  from  the 
exercise  of  military  power,  by  establishing  civil  institutions  regulated  by  law, 
in  distant  provinces.  Rome  would  have  been  standing  this  day  if  she  had  had 
such  Generals  and  such  Magistrates. 

But  the  objection,  whether  true  in  .part  or  even  in  the  whole,  is  immaterial. 
The  question  is  not  what  moved  California  to  impress  any  particular  feature 
in  her  Constitution,  nor  even  what  induced  her  to  adopt  a  constitution  at  all ; 
but  it  is  whether,  since  she  has  adopted  a  Constitution,  she  shall  be  admitted 
into  the  Union. 

I  have  now  reviewed  all  the  objections  raised  against  the  admission  of 
California.  It  is  seen  that  they  have  no  foundation  in  the  law  of  nature  and 
of  nations.  Nor  are  they  founded  in  the  Constitution,  for  the  Constitution  pre 
scribes  no  form  or  manner  of  proceeding  in  the  admission  of.  new  States,  but 
leaves  the  whole  to  the  discretion  of  Congress.  A  Cong^ss  may  admit  new 
States."  The  objections  are  all  merely  formal  and  technical.  They  rest  on 
precedents  which  have  not  always,  nor  even  genen*rty>  been  observed. 

But  it  is  said  that  we  ought  now  to  establish  P&&  precedent  for  the  future  ; 
I  answer,  it  is  too  late  to  seize  this  occasion  &*  that  purpose,  the  irregularity 
complained  of  being  unavoidable.  The  e»ation  should  have  been  exercised, 
first,  when  Texas  was  annexed  ;  second  when  we  wa^ed  war  against  Mexico ; 
or  third,  when  we  ratified  the  treaty  **'  Guadalupe  Hidalgo.  Again  :  we  may 
establish  precedents  at  pleasure,  ^ur  successors  will  exercise  their  pleasure 
about  following  them,  just  as  »e  have  done  in  such  cases.  Third:  States, 
Nations,  and  Empires  are  aj^  to  be  peculiarly  capricious,  not  only  as  to  the 
time,  but  even  as  to  the  winner  of  their  being  born,  and  as  to  their  subsequent 
political  chano-es.  T^ey  are  not  accustomed  to  conform  to  precedents. 
California  sprung  £om  the  head  of  the  nation,  not  only  complete  in  propor 
tions  and  fully  anned,  but  ripe  for  affiliation  with  its  members. 

I  proceed  now  to  state  my  reasons  for  the  opinion  that  California  ought  to 
be  admitted.  The  population  of  the  United  States  consists  of  native  Caucasian 
origin,  and  exotics  of  the  same  derivation.  The  native  mass  rapidly  assimi 
lates  to  itself  and  absorbs  the  exotic,  and  these  therefore  constitute  one 
homogeneous  people.  The  African  race,  bond  and  free,  and  the  aborigines, 
savage  and  civilized,  being  incapable  of  such  assimilation  and  absorption, 
remain  distinct,  and,  owing  to  their  peculiar  condition,  constitute  inferior 
masses,  and  may  be  regarded  as  accidental,  if  not  disturbing  political  forces. 

The  ruling  homogeneous  family  was  planted  at  first  on  the  Atlantic  shore, 
*1 


6 

and,  following  an  obvious  law,  is  seen  continually  and  rapidly  spreading  itself 
westward  year  by  year,  subduing  the  wilderness  and  the  prairie,  and  thus 
extending  this  great  political  community,  which,  as  fast  as  it  advances,  breaks 
into  distinct  States  for  municipal  purposes  only>  while  the  whole  constitutes 
one  entire  contiguous  and  compact  nation. 

Well-established  rules  of  political  arithmetic  enable  us  to  say  that  the  ag 
gregate  population  of  the  nation  now  is  22  millions;  that  10  years  hence  it 
will"  be  30  millions,  20  years  hence  38  millions,  30  years  hence  50  millions,  40 
years  hence  64  millions,  50  years  hence  80  millions,  and  100  years  hence 
200  millions  !  But  the  advance  of  population  on  the  Pacific  will  far  exceed 
what  occurred  on  the  Atlantic  coast,  while  emigration  even  here  is  outstrip 
ping  the  calculation  on  which  these  estimates  are  based.  There  are  silver  and 
gold  in  the  mountains  and  ravines  of  California.  The  granite  of  New  Eng 
land  is  barren. 

Allowing  due  consideration  to  the  increasing  density  of  our  population,  we 
are  safe  in  assuming  that  long  before  this  mass  shall  have  attained  the  maxi 
mum  of  numbers  indicated,  the  entire  width  of  our  possessions,  from  the  At 
lantic  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  will  be  covered  by  it  and  be  brought  into  social 
maturity  and  complete  political  organization. 

The  question  now  arises,  Shall  this  one  great  People,  having  a  common  ori 
gin,  a  common  language,  a  common  religion,  common  sentiments,  interests, 
sympathies,  and  hopes,  remain  one  political  State,  one  Nation,  one  Republic  ? 
or  shall  it  be  broken  into  two  conflicting  and  probably  hostile  Nations  or  Re 
publics  ?  There  cannot  ultimately  be  more  than  two ;  for  the  habit  of  associa 
tion  is  already  formed,  as  the  interests  of  mutual  intercourse  are  forming,  and 
the  central  portions,  if  they  cannot  all  command  access  to  both  oceans,  will 
not  be  obstructed  in  their  approaches  to  that  one  which  offers  the  greatest 
facilities  to  their  commerce. 

Shall  the  American  people,  then,  be  divided  ?  Before  deciding  on  this  ques 
tion,  let  us  consider  our  position,  our  power,  and  capabilities.  The  world  con 
tains  no  seat  of  empire  so  magnificent  as  this,  which,  while  it  embraces  all  the 
varying  climates  of  the  temperate  zone,  and  is  traversed  by  wide  expanding 
lakes  and  long  branching  rivers,  offers  supplies  on  the  Atlantic  shore  to  the 
overcrowded  nations  of  Europe,  while  on  the  Pacific  coast  it  intercepts  the 
commerce  of  Vhe  Indies.  The  nation  thus  situated,  and  enjoying  forest,  min 
eral,  and  agricultural  resources  unequalled,  if  they  are  endowed  also  with 
moral  energies  adequate  to  the  achievement  of  great  enterprise,  and  favored 
with  a  government  adapted  to  their  character  and  condition,  must  command 
the  empire  of  _  the  seas,  wVJch  alone  is  real  empire.  We  think  that  we  may 
claim  to  have  inherited  physic*]  and  intellectual  vigor,  courage,  invention,  and 
enterprise,  and  the  systems  of  ^lucation  prevailing  among  us  open  to  all  the 
stores  of  human  science  and  art. 

The  Old  World  and  the  Past  were  allotted  by  Providence  to  the  pupilage 
of  mankind,  under  the  hard  discipline  of  arbitrary  power  quelling  the  violence 
of  human  passion.  The  New  World  and  ike  Future  seem  to  have  been  ap 
pointed  for  the  maturity  of  mankind,  with  the  Development  of  self-government, 
operating  in  obedience  to  reason  and  judgment  We  have  thoroughly  tried 
our  moral  system  of  Democratic  Federal  Government,  with  its  complex  yet 
harmonious  and  effective  combination  of  distinct  local  tJective  agencies  for  the 
conduct  of  domestic  affairs,  and  its  common  central  elective  agencies  for  the 
regulation  of  internal  interests,  and  of  intercourse  with  foK>5<rn  nations,  and 
we  know  that  it  is  a  system  equally  cohesive  in  its  parts  an<F  Capable  of  all 
desirable  expansion  ;  and  that  it  is  a  system,  moreover,  perfectly  adapted  to 
secure  domestic  tranquility,  while  it  brings  into  action  all  the  elements  of  na 
tional  aggrandizement. 

The  Atlantic  States,  through  their  commercial,  social,  and  political  affinities 
and  sympathies,  are  steadily  renovating  the  governments  and  the  social  con 
stitutions  of  Europe  and  of  Africa.  The  Pacific  States  must  necessarily  per 
form  the  same  sublime  and  beneficent  functions  in  Asia.  If,  then,  the  Ameri 
can  people  shall  remain  one  individual  nation,  the  ripening  civilization  of  the 


West,  after  a  separation  growing  wider  and  wider  for  four  thousand  years, 
•will  in  its  circuit  of  the  world  meet  again  and  mingle  with  the  declining  civ 
ilization  of  the  East,  on  our  own  free  soil,  and  a  new  and  more  perfect  civil 
ization  will  arise  to  bless  the  earth,  under  the  sway  of  our  own  cherished  and 
beneficent  democratic  institutions.  We  may  then  reasonably  hope  for  great 
ness,  felicity,  and  renown  excelling  any  hitherto  attained  by  any  nation,  if, 
standing  firmly  on  the  Continent,  we  loose  not  our  grasp  on  the  shore  of  either 
ocean.  Whether  a  destiny  so  magnificent  would  be  only  partially  defeated,  or 
whether  it  would  be  altogether  lost,  by  a  relaxation  of  that  grasp,  surpasses  our 
wisdom  to  determine,  and  happily  is  not  important  to  be  determined.  It  is 
enough  if  we  agree  that  expectations  so  grand,  yet  so  reasonable  and  so  just, 
oughf  not  to  be  in  any  degree  disappointed. 

^.nd  now  it  seems  to  me  that  the  perpetual  unity  of  our  empire  hangs  on 
the  decision  of  this  day  and  of  this  hour.  California  is  already  a  State — a  com 
plete  and  fully  appointed  State ;  she  never  again  can  be  less  than  that.  She 
can  never  a^ain  be  a  Province  or  a  Colony.  Nor  can  she  be  made  to  shrink 
and  shrivel  into  the  proportions  of  a  federal  dependent  territory.  California, 
then,  henceforth  and  forever,  must  be  what  she  is  now — a  State.  The  ques 
tion,  whether  she  shall  be  one  of  the  United  States  of  America,  has  depended 
on  her  and  on  us.  Her  election  has  been  made.  Our  consent  alone  remains 
suspended,  and  that  consent  must  be  pronounced  now  or  never.  I  say  now  or 
never !  Nothing  prevents  it  now  but  want  of  agreement  among  ourselves. 
Our  harmony  cannot  increase  while  this  question  remains  open.  We  shall 
never  agree  to  admit  California  unless  we  agree  now. 

Nor  will  California  abide  delay.  I  do  not  say  that  she  contemplates  inde 
pendence  ;  but  if  she  does  not,  it  is  because  she  does  not  anticipate  rejection. 
Do  you  say  that  she  can  have  no  motive  ?  Consider,  then,  her  attitude  if  reject 
ed.  She  needs  a  capital,  a  legislature,  and  magistrates ;  she  needs  titles  to  that 
golden  domain  of  ours  within  her  borders,  good  titles,  too,  and  you  must  give 
them  on  your  own  terms,  or  she  must  take  them  without  your  leave.  She  needs 
a  mint,  a  custom  house,  wharves,  hospitals,  and  institutions  of  learning. 
She  needs  fortifications,  roads,  and  railroads.  She  needs  the  protection  of  an 
army  and  a  navy.  Either  your  stars  and  stripes  must  wave  over  her  ports  and 
her  fleets,  or  she  must  raise  aloft  a  standard  for  herself.  She  needs  at  least  to 
know  whether  you  are  friends  or  enemies.  And,  finally,  she  needs  what  no 
American  community  can  live  without — sovereignty  and  independence — either 
a  just  and  equal  share  of  yours,  or  sovereignty  and  independence  of  her  own. 

Will  you  say  that  California  could  not  aggrandize  herself  by  separation  ? 
Would  it  then  be  a  mean  ambition  to  set  up  within  fifty  years,  on  the  Pacific 
coast,  monuments  like  those  which  we  think  two  hundred  years  have  been  well 
spent  in  establishing  on  the  Atlantic  coast  ?  Will  you  say  that  California  has 
no  ability  to  become  independent  ?  She  has  the  same  moral  ability  for  enter 
prise  that  inheres  in  us,  and  that  ability  implies  command  of  all  physical  means. 
She  has  advantages  of  position ;  she  is  practically  farther  removed  from  you 
than  England.  You  cannot  reach  her  by  railroad  or  by  unbroken  steamboat 
navigation.  You  can  send  no  armies  over  the  prairie,  the  mountain  and  the 
desert;  nor  across  the  remote  and  narrow  Isthmus,  within  a  foreign  jurisdic 
tion  ;  nor  around  the  Cape  of  Storms.  You  may  send  a  navy  there,  but  she 
has  only  to  open  her  mines,  and  she  can  reduce  your  marines  and  appropriate 
your  floating  bulwarks  to  her  own  defence.  Let  her  only  seize  your  domain 
within  her  borders,  and  your  commerce  in  her  port,  and  she  will  have  at  once 
revenue  and  credit  adequate  to  all  her  necessities.  Beside,  are  we  so  moderate, 
and  has  the  world  become  BO  just,  that  we  have  no  rivals  and  no  enemies  to 
lend  their  sympathies  and  aid  to  compass  the  dismemberment  of  our  empire  ? 
Try  not  the  temper  or  the  fidelity  of  California;  at  least  not  now,  not  yet. 
Cherish  her  and  indulge  her  until  you  have  extended  your  settlements  to  her 
borders,  and  bound  her  fast  by  railroads  and  canals  and  telegraphs  to  your  in 
terests  ;  until  her  affinities  of  intercourse  are  established,  and  habits  of  loyal 
ty  are  fixed,  and  then  she  can  never  be  disengaged. 

California  would  not  go  alone ;  Oregon,  so  intimately  allied  to  her,  and  aa 


8 

yet  so  loosely  attached  to  us,  will  go  also ;  and  then,  at  least  the  entire  Pacific 
coast,  with  the  western  declivity  of  the  Sierra  Nevada,  would  be  lost.  It 
would  not  depend  at  all  on  us,  nor  even  on  the  mere  forbearance  of  Califor 
nia,  how  far  eastward  the  long  line  across  the  temperate  zone  should  be  drawn 
which  should  separate  the  Republic  of  the  Pacific  from  the  Republic  of  the  At 
lantic.  TERMINUS  has  passed  away  with  all  the  deities  of  the  ancient  Pan 
theon,  but  his  sceptre  remains.  Commerce  is  the  god  of  boundaries,  and  no 
man  now  living  can  foretell  its  ultimate  decree. 

But  it  is  insisted  that  the  admission  of  California  shall  be  attended  by  a 
COMPROMISE  of  questions  which  have  arisen  out  of  SLAVERY.  I  am  opposed 
to  any  such  compromise,  in  any  and  all  the  forms  in  which  it  has  been  pro 
posed.  First :  because  while  admitting  the  purity  and  the  patriotism  of  all 
from  whom  it  is  my  misfortune  to  differ,  I  think  all  legislative  compromises 
essentially  and  radically  wrong  and  indefensible.  They  involve  the  surrender 
of  the  exercise  of  judgment  and  conscience  on  distinct  and  separate  ques 
tions  at  distinct  and  separate  times,  with  the  indispensable  advantages  it  af 
fords  for  ascertaining  truth.  They  involve  a  relinquishment  of  the  right  to 
reconsider  in  future  the  decisions  of  the  present  on  questions  prematurely 
anticipated,  and  they  are  an  usurpation,  as  to  future  questions  of  the  province 
of  future  legislators. 

Sir,  it  seems  to  me  as  if  Slavery  had  laid  its  paralyzing  hand  upon  myself, 
and  the  blood  were  coursing  less  freely  than  its  wont  through  my  veins,  when 
I  endeavor  to  suppose  that  such  a  compromise  has  been  effected,  and  my  ut 
terance  forever  is  arrested  upon  all  the  great  questions,  social,  moral,  and  po 
litical,  arising  out  of  a  subject  so  important  and  as  yet  so  incomprehensible. 
What  am  I  to  receive  in  this  compromise  ?  Freedom  in  California  ?  It  is 
well.  It  is  a  noble  acquisition.  But  what  am  I  give  up  as  an  equivalent  ?  A 
recognition  of  the  claim  to  perpetuate  Slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia  ! 
Forbearance  toward  more  stringent  laws  concerning  the  arrest  of  persons  sus 
pected  of  being  Slaves,  found  in  the  Free  States !  Forbearance  from  the 
Proviso  of  Freedom,  in  the  charters  of  new  Territories.  None  of  the  plans 
of  compromise  offered  demand  less  than  two,  £hd  most  of  tliem  insist  on  all,  of 
these  conditions.  The  equivalent  then  is,  some  portion  of  Liberty,  some  por 
tion  of  Human  Rights  in  one  region,  for  Liberty  in  another  region.  But 
California  brings  gold  and  commerce  as  well  as  Freedom.  I  am  then  to  sur 
render  some  portion  of  Human  Freedom  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  in 
East  California  and  New  Mexico,  for  the  mixed  consideration  of  Liberty, 
Gold,  and  Power  on  the  Pacific  coast ! 

This  view  of  Legislative  compromises  is  not  new.  It  has  widely  prevailed, 
and  many  of  the  State  Constitutions  interdict  the  introduction  of  more  than 
one  subject  into  one  bill  submitted  for  legislative  action. 

Sir,  it  was  of  such  compromises  that  Burke  said,  in  one  of  the  loftiest  bursts 
of  even  his  majestic  parliamentary  eloquence  : 

"  Far,  far  from  the  Commons  of  Great  Britain,  be  all  manner  of  real  vice ;  but  ten 
thousand  times  further  from  them,  as  far  as  from  pole  to  pcle,  be  the  whole  tribe  of  spu 
rious,  affected,  counterfeit,  and  hypocritical  virtues.  These  are  the  things  which  are  ten 
thousand  times  more  at  war  with  real  virtue — these  are  the  things  which  are  ten  thous 
and  times  more  at  war  with  real  duty — than  any  vice  known  by  its  name,  and  distin 
guished  by  its  proper  character. 

"  Far,  far  from  us  be  that  false  and  affected  candor  thai  is  eternally  in  treaty  with 
crime — that  half  virtue  which,  like  the  ambiguous  animal  that  plays  about  in  the  twi 
light  of  a  compromise  between  day  and  night,  is  to  a  just  man's  eye  an  odious  and 
disgusting  thing.  There  is  no  midd'le  point,  my  Lords,  in  which  the  Commons  of  Great 
Britain  can  meet  tyranny  and  oppression." 

But,  Sir,  could  I  overcome  my  repugnance  to  compromises  in  general,  I 
should  object  to  this  one  on  the  ground  of  the  inequality  and  incongruity  of 
the  interests  to  be  compromised.  Why,  Sir,  according  to  the  views  I  have 
submitted,  California  ought  to  come  in  and  must  come  in,  whether  Slavery 
stands  or  falls  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  New  Mexico  and  Eastern  Cali 
fornia,  and  even  whether  Slavery  stands  or  falls  in  the  Slave  States.  Cali 
fornia  ought  to  come  in,  and  must  come  in,  at  all  events.  It  is  an  indepen 
dent  question.  What,  then,  are  these  questions  arising  out  of  Slavery,  thus 


interposed,  but  collateral  questions  ?  They  are  unnecessary  and  incongru 
ous,  and  therefore  false  issues,  not  introduced  designedly,  indeed,  to  defend 
that  great  policy,  yet  unavoidably  tending  to  that  end. 

But  consent  on  my  part  to  the  compromise  would  be  disingenuous  and 
fraudulent.  It  is  now  avowed  by  the  Hon.  Senator  from  South  Carolina  (Mr. 
Calhoun)  that  nothing  will  satisfy  the  Slave  States  but  a  compromise  that 
will  convince  them  that  they  can  remain  in  the  Union  consistently  with  their 
honor  and  safety.  And  what  are  the  concessions  which  will  have  that  effect? 
Here  they  are,  in  the  words  of  that  Senator  : — 

"  The  North  must  do  justice  by  conceding  to  the  South  an  equal  right  in  the  acquired 
Territory,  and  do  her  duty  by  causing  the  stipulations  relative  to  fugitive  slaves  to  be 
faithfully  fulfilled  ;  cease  the  agitation  of  the  slave  question,  and  provide  for  the  insertion 
of  a  provision  in  the  Constitution,  by  an  amendment,  which  will  restore  to  the  South,  in 
substance,  the  power  she  possessed  of  protecting  herself  before  the  equilibrium  between 
the  sections  was  destroyed  by  the  action  of  this  government." 

These  terms  amount  to  this, — that  the  Free  States,  having  already  a  major 
ity  of  population,  and  majorities  in  both  Houses  of  Congress,  shall  concede  to 
the  Slave  States,  being  in  a  minority  in  both,  the  unequal  advantage  of  an 
equality, — that  is,  that  we  shall  alter  the  Constitution  so  as  to  convert  the 
government  from  a  national  Democracy,  controlled  by  a  Constitutional  ma 
jority  of  voices,  into  a  federal  alliance, 'in  which  the  minority  shall  have  a 
veto  against  the  majority  !  and  thus  to  return  to  the  original  articles  of  Con 
federation. 

I  will  not  stop  to  protest  against  the  injustice  and  inexpediency  of  an  inno 
vation  which,  if  it  were  practicable,  would  be  so  entirely  subversive  of  the 
principle  of  Democratic  institutions.  It  is  enough  to  say  that  it  is  totally  im 
practicable.  The  Free  States,  Northern  and  Western,  have  acquiesced  in 
the  long  and  nearly  unbroken  ascendency  of  the  Slave  States  under  the  Con 
stitution,  because  the  result  happened  under  the  Constitution.  But  they  have 
honor  and  interests  to  preserve ;  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  or  in  the 
character  of  the  people  to  induce  an  expectation  that  they,  loyal  as  they  are, 
are  insensible  to  the  duty  of  defending  them. 

But  the  scheme  would  still  be  impracticable,  if  even  this  difficulty  were 
overcome.  What  is  proposed  is  a  political  equilibrium.  Every  political  equi 
librium  requires  a  physical  equilibrium  to  rest  upon,  and  is  valueless  without 
it.  To  constitute  a  physical  equilibrium  between  the  Slave  States  and  the 
Free  States  requires,  first,  an  equality  of  territory  or  some  near  approximation, 
and  this  is  already  lost.  But  it  requires  much  more  than  this.  It  requires 
an  equality  or  a  proximate  equality  in  the  number  of  slaves  and  freemen,  and 
this  must  be  perpetual. 

But  the  census  of  1840  gives  a  slave  basis  of  only  two  millions  and  a  half, 
and  a  free  basis  of  fourteen  millions  and  a  half.  The  population  on  the  slave 
basis  increases  in  the  ratio  of  25  per  cent,  for  ten  years,  while  that  on  the  free 
basis  advances  at  the  rate  of  38  per  cent.  The  accelerating  movement  of  the 
free  population  now  complained  of,  will  occupy  the  new  Territories  with  pio 
neers,  and  every  day  increase  the  difficulty  of  forcing  or  insinuating  Slavery 
into  regions  which  freemen  have  preoccupied.  And  if  this  were  possible,  the 
African  Slave  Trade  is  prohibited,  and  the  domestic  increase  is  not  sufficient 
to  supply  the  new  Slave  States  which  are  expected  to  maintain  the  equili 
brium. 

The  theory  of  a  new  political  equilibrium  claims  that  it  once  existed  and 
has  been  lost.  When  lost,  and  how  ?  It  began  to  be  lost  in  1787,  when  pre 
liminary  arrangements  were  made  to  admit  five  new  States  in  the  Northwest 
Territory,  two  years  before  the  Constitution  was  finally  adopted ; — that  is,  it 
began  to  be  lost  two  years  before  it  began  to  exist ! 

Sir,  the  equilibrium,  if  restored,  would  be  lost  more  rapidly  than  it  was  be 
fore.  The  progress  of  the  free  population  is  to  be  accelerated  by  emigration 
from  Europe  and  Asia,  while  that  of  the  slaves  is  to  be  checked  and  retarded 
by  inevitable  partial  emancipation.  Nothing,  says  Montesquieu,  reduces  a 
man  so  low  as  always  to  see  freemen,  and  yet  not  be  free.  Persons  in  that 
condition  are  natural  enemies  of  the  State,  and  their  numbers  would  be  dan- 


10 

if  increased  too  high  !  Sir,  the  fugitive  slave  colonies  in  the  Free 
tates,  in  Canada  and  in  Liberia,  are  the  best  guarantees  South  Carolina  has 
for  the  perpetuity  of  slavery. 

Nor  would  success  attend  any  of  the  details  of  the  compromise.  And  first, 
I  advert  to  the  amendment  of  the  law  concerning  fugitives  from  service  or 
labor.  The  Constitution  contains  only  a  compact  which  rests  for  its  execu 
tion  on  the  States.  Not  content  with  this,  the  Slave  States  induced  legislation 
by  Congress  ;  and  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  have  virtually 
decided  that  the  whole  subject  is  within  the  province  of  Congress,  and  exclu 
sive  of  State  authority.  Nay,  they  have  decided  that  slaves  are  to  be  regarded 
not  merely  as  persons  to  be  claimed,  but  as  property  and  chattels  to  be  seized 
without  any  legal  authority  or  claim  whatever. 

The  compact  is  thus  subverted  by  the  procurement  of  the  Slave  States ; 
with  what  reason,  then,  can  they  expect  the  States  ex  gratia  to  reassume  the 
obligations  from  which  they  caused  those  States  to  be  discharged  ?  I  say, 
then,  to  the  Slave  States,  you  are  entitled  to  no  more  stringent  law,  and  such 
a  one  would  be  useless.  The  cause  of  the  insufficiency  of  the  present  statute 
is  not  at  all  the  leniency  of  its  provisions.  It  is  a  law  that  deprives  the  alleged 
refugee  from  a  legal  obligation  not  assumed  by  him,  but  imposed  upon  him  by 
laws  enacted  before  he  was  born,  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  and  of  any  cer 
tain  judicial  process  of  examination  of  the  claim  set  up  by  his  pursuer,  and 
finally  degrades  him  into  a  chattel,  which  may  be  seized  and  carried  away 
peaceably  wherever  found,  even  although  exercising  the  rights  and  responsi 
bilities  of  a  free  citizen  of  the  Commonwealth  in  which  he  resides,  and  of  the 
United  States  ;  a  law  which  denies  to  the  citizen  all  the  safeguards  of  personal 
liberty,  to  render  less  possible  the  escape  of  the  bondman. 

We  deem  its  principle  therefore  unjust,  unconstitutional,  and  immoral ;  and 
thus,  while  patriotism  withholds  its  approbation,  the  consciences  of  our  people 
condemn  it.  You  will  say  that  these  convictions  of  ours  are  disloyal.  Grant 
it,  for  argument's  sake  ;  they  are,  nevertheless,  honest.  And  the  law  is  to  be 
executed  among  us,  not  among  you  ;  not  by  us,  but  by  the  federal  authority. 
Has  any  government  ever  succeeded  in  changing  the  moral  convictions  of  its 
subjects  by  force  ?  But  these  convictions  imply  no  disloyalty.  We  revere 
the  Constitution,  although  we  perceive  this  defect,  just  as  we  acknowledge  the 
splendor  and  the  power  of  the  sun,  although  its  surface  is  tarnished  with  here 
and  there  an  opaque  spot. 

Your  Constitution  and  Law  converts  hospitality  to  the  refugees  from  the 
most  degrading  oppression  on  earth  into  a  crime.  But  all  mankind,  except 
you,  esteem  that  hospitality  a  virtue.  The  right  of  extradition,  of  even  fugi 
tives  from  justice,  is  not  admitted  by  the  law  of  nature  and  of  nations,  but 
rests  on  voluntary  compact. 

Only  two  compacts  found  in  diplomatic  history  admitted  extradition  of 
slaves.  Here  is  one  of  them.  It  is  found  in  a  treaty  made  between  Alex 
ander  Comnenus,  the  Greek  Emperor  at  Constantinople,  and  Oleg  II.,  King 
of  Russia,  in  the  year  902,  and  is  in  these  words  : — 

"  If  a  Russian  slave  take  flight  from  his  master,  or  if  he  shall  be  held  under  pretence 
of  having  been  bought,  his  master  may  pursue  him  and  take  him  wheresoever  he  may 
be  found;  and  whosoever  shall  prevent  his  master  from  taking  him,  shall  be  guilty  of 
offending  this  treaty,  and  shall  be  punished  accordingly." 

This  was  in  the  year  of  grace  902,  in  what  is  called  the  Dark  Ages,  and  the 
contracting  powers  were  Despotism. 
And  here  is  the  other  : — 

"  No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State  tinder  the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into 
another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  laws  or  regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such 
service  or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or 
labor  is  due." 

This  is  from  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  in  1787,  and  the  parties 
were  the  Republican  States  of  this  Union. 

The  law  of  nations  disavows  such  compacts — the  law  of  nations,  written 
on  the  hearts  and  consciences  of  freemen,  repudiates  them.  Armed  power 


11 

could  not  enforce  them,  because  there  is  no  public  conscience  to  sustain  them. 
I  know  that  there  are  laws  of  various  sorts  that  regulate  the  conduct  of  men. 
There  are  constitutions  and  statutes,  laws  mercantile  and  codes  civil ;  but 
when  we  are  legislating  for  States,  especially  when  we  are  founding  States, 
all  these  laws  must  be  brought  to  the  standard  of  the  laws  of  God,  and  must 
be  tried  by  that  standard,  and  stand  or  fall  by  it.  It  is  of  this  principle  that 
an  eminent  political  philosopher  of  England,  Burke,  said, — 

"  There  is  but  one  law  for  all,  namely,  that  law  which  governs  all  law — the  law  of  our 
Creator — the  law  of  humanity,  justice,  equity — the  law  of  nature  and  of  nations.  So 
far  as  any  laws  fortify  this  primeval  law,  and  give  it  more  precision,  more  energy,  more 
effect  by  their  declarations,  such  laws  enter  into  the  sanctuary  and  participate  in  the 
sacredness  of  its  character.  But  the  man  who  quotes  as  precedents  the  abuses  of  ty 
rants  and  robbers,  pollutes  the  very  fountains  of  justice,  destroys  the  foundations  of  all 
law,  and  therefore  removes  the  only  safeguard  against  evil  men,  whether  governors  or 
governed,  the  guard  which  prevents  governors  from  becoming  tyrants,  and  the  governed 
from  becoming  rebels." 

There  was  deep  philosophy  in  the  confession  of  an  eminent  English  judge. 
When  he  had  condemned  a  young  woman  to  death  under  the  late  sanguinary 
code  of  his  country,  for  her  first  petty  theft,  she  fell  dead  at  his  feet.  "  I  seem 
to  myself,"  said  he,  "  to  have  been  pronouncing  sentence,  not  against  the  pris 
oner,  but  against  the  law  itself." 

To  conclude  on  this  point,  WE  ARE  NOT  SLAVEHOLDERS  ;  we  cannot  in 
our  judgment  be  either  true  Christians  or  real  freemen,  if  we  impose  on 
another  a  chain  that  we  deny  all  human  power  to  fasten  on  ourselves.  You 
believe  and  think  otherwise,  and  doubtless  with  equal  sincerity.  We  judge 
you  not,  and  He  alone  who  ordained  the  conscience  of  man  and  its  laws  of 
action  can  judge  us.  Do  we  then  in  this  conflict  demand  of  you  an  unreason 
able  thing  in  asking  that,  since  you  will  have  property  that  can  and  will  ex 
ercise  human  power  to  effect  its  escape,  you  shall  be  your  own  police,  and  in 
acting  among  us  as  such,  you  shall  conform  to  principles  indispensable  to  the 
security  of  admitted  rights  of  freemen  ? 

Another  feature  in  most  of  the  plans  of  compromise,  is  a  bill  of  peace  for 
Slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  this  bill  of  peace  we  cannot  grant 
We  of  the  Free  States  are,  equally  with  you  of  the  Slave  States,  responsible 
for  the  existence  of  Slavery  in  this  District,  the  field  exclusively  of  our  com 
mon  legislation.  I  regret  that  as  yet  I  see  little  reason  to  hope  that  a  majority 
in  favor  of  emancipation  exists  here.  The  Legislature  of  New  York — from 
whom,  with  great  deference,  I  dissent — seems  willing  to  accept  now  the  ex 
tinction  of  the  slave  trade,  and  waive  emancipation. 

But  we  shall  assume  the  whole  responsibility,  if  we  stipulate  not  to  exercise 
the  power  hereafter  when  a  majority  shall  be  obtained.  Nor  will  the  plea 
with  which  you  would  furnish  us  be  of  any  avail.  If  I  could  understand  my 
self,  I  should  never  be  able  to  explain  to  the  direct  understanding  of  the  peo 
ple  whom  I  represent  how  it  was  that  an  absolute  and  express  power  to  legis 
late  in  all  cases  over  the  District  of  Columbia,  was  embarrassed  and  defeated 
by  an  implied  condition  not  to  legislate  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  that 
District.  Sir,  I  shall  vote  for  that  measure,  and  am  willing  to  appropriate  any 
means  to  carry  it  into  execution.  And  if  I  shall  be  asked  what  I  did  to  em 
bellish  the  capital  of  my  country,  I  will  point  to  her  freed  men  and  say, 
4  These  are  the  monuments  of  my  munificence.'  If  I  was  willing  to  advance 
a  cause  that  I  deem  sacred  by  disingenuous  means,  I  would  advise  you  to 
adopt  these  measures  of  compromise  which  I  have  thus  examined.  The  echo 
is  not  quicker  in  its  response  than  would  be  that  loud  and  universal  cry  of 
Repeal !  that  would  not  die  away  until  the  habeas  corpus  was  secured  to  the 
alleged  fugitive  from  bondage,  and  the  symmetry  of  the  free  institutions  of 
the  capital  was  perfected. 

I  apply  the  same  observations  to  the  proposition  for  a  waiver  of  the  Proviso 
of  Freedom  in  Territorial  charters.  Thus  far  you  have  only  direct  popular 
action  in  favor  of  that  ordinance,  and  there  seems  even  to  be  a  partial  dispo 
sition  to  await  the  action  of  the  people  of  the  new  Territories,  as  we  have 
compulsorily  waited  for  it  in  California.  But  I  must  tell  you,  nevertheless,  in 


12 

all  candor  and  in  plainness,  that  the  spirit  of  the  people  in  the  Free  States  is 
set  upon  a  spring  that  rises  with  the  pressure  put  upon  it.  That  spring,  if 
pressed  too  hard,  will  give  a  recoil  that  will  not  leave  here  one  servant  who 
knew  his  master's  will  and  did  it  not.  You  will  say  that  this  implies  violence. 
Not  at  all ;  it  implies  only  peaceful,  lawful,  constitutional,  customary  action. 
I  cannot  too  strongly  express  my  surprise  that  those  who  insist  that  the  people 
of  the  Slave  States  cannot  be  held  back  from  remedies  outside  of  the  Consti 
tution,  should  so  far  misunderstand  us  of  the  Free  States  as  to  suppose  we 
would  not  exercise  our  constitutional  rights  to  sustain  the  policy  which  we 
dee.m  just  and  beneficent. 

I  object  in  the  next  place  to  the  compromise  of  the  boundary  between 
Texas  and  New  Mexico.  That  is  a  judicial  question  in  its  nature,  or  at  least 
a  question  of  legal  right  and  title.  If  it  is  to  be  compromised  at  all,  it  is  due 
to  the  two  parties,  to  national  dignity,  as  well  as  to  justice,  that  it  be  kept 
separate  from  compromises  proceeding  on  the  ground  of  expediency,  and  be 
settled  by  itself  alone. 

I  take  this  occasion  to  say  that  I  do  not  intend  to  discuss  the  question  which 
has  been  raised  by  the  honorable  and  distinguished  Senator  from  Massachu 
setts  (Mr.  Webster).  But  I  am  compelled  to  say  that  Thave  not  the  good 
fortune  to  concur  with  him  in  the  opinions  which  he  has  expressed  in  regard 
to  the  admission  of  new  States  to  be  formed  out  of  the  State  of  Texas.  There 
are  various  questions  involved  in  that  subject  which  I  think  this  is  not  the 
time  to  decide,  and  which  I  wish  to  reserve  for  future  consideration.  One  is, 
whether  the  article  of  Annexation  does  really  deprive  Congress  of  the  right 
to  express  its  voice  in  regard  to  the  subdivision  of  the  State  of  Texas.  I  only 
say  that  to  me  it  seems  by  no  means  so  plain  a  question  as  the  Senator  as 
sumes,  and  therefore  with  me  it  must  remain  a  question  for  future  considera 
tion, — an  open  question,  whether  Congress  is  not  a  party  whose  future  con 
sent  is  necessary  to  any  division  of  Texas. 

Mr.  WEBSTER — Will  the  Senator  allow  me  to  ask  him  one  question  ? 

Mr.  SEWARD — Certainly,  sir. 

Mr.  WEBSTER — Supposing  Congress  to  have  the  authority  to  fix  the  num 
ber  of  States  and  the  time  of  election,  the  apportionment  of  representation, 
&c.,  the  question  is,  whether,  if  new  States  are  formed  out  of  Texas  to  come 
into  this  Union,  there  is  not  a  solemn  pledge  by  law  that  they  have  a  right  to 
come  in  as  Slave  States. 

Mr.  SEWARD — The  article  is  in  effect  in  these  words  :  New  States,  not  ex 
ceeding  four  in  number,  may  be  framed  out  of  the  Territory  of  Texas,  with  the 
consent  of  Texas,  and  shall  be  admitted  into  the  Union,  with  or  without  Slav 
ery  if  they  shall  cloose. 

Mr.  WEBSTER — If  they  "  choose,"  they  may  come  in  as  Slave  States. 

Mr.  SEWARD — I  beg  pardon  of  the  Hon.  Senator,  but  it  is  with  or  without 
Slavery.  But  I  pass  the  question,  as  the  volume  is  not  at  hand,  and  I  fear  I 
shall  trespass  on  the  time  of  the  Senate  by  waiting  for  it.  I  am  moreover  not 
unconstitutional.  I  find  no  authority  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
for  the  annexation  of  foreign  States  by  resolution.  What  I  mean  now  espe 
cially  to  insist  upon  is, that"  I  must  have  time  to  deliberate  until  the  occasion 
actually  arrives,  before  I  consent  to  any  division  of  the  State  of  Texas  so  as 
to  bring  in  any  new  State  with  a  Constitution  maintaining  Slavery.  I  must 
have  the  point  settled  that  the  article  of  Annexation  is  compulsory  upon  me, 
and  also  that  it  is  constitutional. 

Mr.  FOOTE — Did  I  not  rightly  understand  the  Senator  to  say  that  he  would 
have  voted  to  admit  California  as  a  Slave  State  if  she  had  voluntarily  inserted 
such  a  provision  in  her  Constitution  ? 

Mr.  SEWARD — Yes,  Sir,  under  these  extraordinary  circumstances  of  con 
quest,  of  a  compact  of  abandoment,  of  impossibility  to  give  a  Territorial  gov 
ernment,  of  a  Constitution  adopted  by  the  people,  and  of  dismemberment  of 
the  empire  if  she  was  rejected, — under  these  circumstances,  I  would  have  re 
ceived  California,  though  she  had  come,  to  my  profound  regret,  as  a  Slave  State. 
I  am  happy  now,  Mr.  President,  to  understand  that  I  agree  with  the  Hon. 


13 

member  from  Massachusetts,  that  it  is  not  compulsory  upon  Congress  hereafter 
to  admit  four  new  Slave  States  in  Texas — that  they  have  reserved  the  right 
to  decide  whether  any  new  State  shall  be  formed  there.  I  shall  vote  for  ad 
mitting  no  more  Slave  States,  unless  under  circumstances  absolutely  control 
ling  and  compulsory ;  and  such  cannot  now  be  foreseen. 

Mr.  WEBSTER — The  Senator  does  not  understand  me.  My  proposition  was, 
that  States  hereafter  made  out  of  Texas,  with  her  consent,  if  they  choose  to 
come  in  as  Slave  States,  have  a  right  to  do  so. 

Mr.  SEWARD — My  position  is  that  they  have  not  a  right  to  come  in  if  Con 
gress  shall  refuse  its  consent.  It  is  optional  with  both  parties,  Congress  and 
Texas. 

Mr.  WEBSTER — Does  the  Senator  hold  that  we  may  hereafter  decide  wheth 
er  they  shall  be  Slave  States  or  Free  States  ? 

Mr.  SEWARD — No,  sir  ;  but  that  Congress  may  decide  that  there  shall  be 
no  States  at  all  formed  out  of  Texas. 

Another  objection  arises  out  of  the  principle  on  which  the  compromise 
rests.  That  principle  is  a  classification  of  the  States  as  Northern  and  South 
ern  States,  as  is  expressed  by  the  Hon.  Senator  from  South  Carolina,  (Mr. 
Calhoun,)  but  into  Slave  States  and  Free  States,  as  more  directly  expressed 
by  the  honorable  Senator  from  Georgia  (Mr.  Berrien).  The  argument  is, 
that  the  States  are  severally  equal,  and  that  these  two  classes  were  equal  at  the 
first,  and  that  the  Constitution  was  founded  on  that  equilibrium ;  that  the 
States  being  equal,  and  the  classes  of  the  States  being  equal  in  rights,  they 
are  to  be  regarded  as  constituting  an  association  in  which  each  State  and  each 
of  the  classes  of  States  respectively  contribute  in  due  proportion ;  that  the 
new  Territories  are  a  common  acquisition,  and  that  the  people  of  these  several 
States  and  classes  of  States  have  an  equal  right  to  participate  in  them  respec 
tively  ;  that  the  right  of  the  people  of  the  Slave  States  to  emigrate  to  the  Ter 
ritories  with  their  slaves  as  property,  is  such  a  participation  on  their  part,  in 
asmuch  as  the  people  of  the  Free  States  emigrate  into  the  same  Territories 
with  their  property.  And  the  argument  deduces  from  this  right  the  principle 
that  if  Congress  exclude  Slavery  from  any  part  of  this  new  domain,  it  would 
be  only  just  to  set  off  a  portion  of  the  domain,  (some  say  south  of  36  deg. 
30  min.,  others  south  of  34  deg.,)  which  should  be  regarded  at  least  as  open  to 
Slavery,  and  to  be  organized  into  Slave  States. 

Argument,  ingenious  and  subtile, — declamation,  earnest  and  bold, — and  per 
suasion,  gentle  and  winning  as  the  voice  of  the  turtle-dove  when  it  is  heard 
in  the  land,  all  alike  and  all  together  have  failed  to  convince  me  of  the  sound 
ness  of  this  principle  of  the  proposed  Compromise,  or  of  any  one  of  the  prop 
ositions  on  which  it  is  attempted  to  be  established.  How  is  the  original  equal 
ity  of  the  States  proved  ?  It  rests  on  a  syllogism,  as  follows : — 

"  All  men  are  equal  by  the  law  of  nature  and  of  nations.  But  States  are  only  lawful 
aggregations  of  individual  men,  who  individually  are  equal.  Therefore  States  are  equal 
in  natural  rights." 

All  this  is  just  and  sound.  But  assuming  the  same  premises,  to  wit, — that  all 
men  are  equal  by  the  law  of  nature  and  of  nations,  the  right  of  property  in 
slaves  falls  to  the  ground;  for  one  who  is  equal  to  another  cannot  be  the 
owner  or  property  of  the  other.  But  you  answer  that  the  Constitution  recog 
nizes  property  in  slaves.  It  would  be  sufficient,  then,  to  reply,  that  this  Con 
stitutional  recognition  must  be  void,  because  it  is  repugnant  to  the  law  of  na 
tions.  But  I  deny  that  the  Constitution  recognizes  property  in  man.  I  sub 
mit,  on  the  other  hand,  most  respectfully,  that  the  Constitution  not  merely  does 
not  affirm  that  principle,  but  on  the  contrary  altogether  excludes  it.  The 
Constitution  does  not  expressly  affirm  anything  on  the  subject.  All  that  it 
contains  is  two  incidental  allusions  to  slaves.  These  are,  first,  in  the  provision 
establishing  a  ratio  of  representation  and  taxation  ;  second,  in  the  provision  re- 
Jating  to  fugitives  from  labor.  In  both  cases  the  Constitution  designedly  men 
tions  slaves  not  as  slaves,  much  less  as  chattels,  but  as  persons.  That  this 
recognition  of  them  as  persons  was  designed  is  historically  known,  and  I  think 
never  denied.  I  give  only  two  of  the  manifold  proofs. 
2 


14 

John  Jay,  in  the  Federalist,  says  : — 

"  Let  the  case  of  the  slaves  be  considered,  as  it  is  in  truth  a  peculiar  one.  Let  the 
compromising  expedient  of  the  Constitution  be  mutually  adopted,  which  regards  them  a» 
ixiJiabitants,  but  as  debased  below  the  equal  level  of  free  inhabitants, — which  regards  the 
slaves  as  divested  of  two-fifths  of  the  man. 

Yes,  Sir!  of  two-fifths,  but  of  only  two-fifths,  leaving  still  three-fifths,  leaving 
him  still  an  inhabitant,  a  living,  breathing,  moving,  reasoning,  immortal  man. 

The  other  proof  is  from  the  debate  in  the  Convention.  It  is  brief,  and  I 
think  instructive. 

"  Aug.  28, 1787. — Mr.  BUTLER  and  Mr.  PINCKNEY  moved  to  require  fugitive  slaves  and 
servants  to  be  delivered  up  like  convicts. 

Mr.  WILSON. — This  would  oblige  the  Executive  of  the  State  to  do  it  at  public  expense. 

Mr.  SHERMAN  saw  no  more  propriety  in  the  public  seizing  and  surrendering  a  slave  or 
a  servant  than  a  horse. 

Mr.  BUTLER  withdrew  his  proposition  in  order  that  some  particular  provision  might  be 
made,  apart  from  this  article. 

Aug.  29th.— Mr.  BUTLER  moved  to  insert,  after  Article  15,  "If  any  person, bound  to 
service  or  labor  in  any  of  the  United  States,  shall  escape  into  another  State,  he  or  she  shall 
not  be  discharged  from  such  service  or  labor  in  consequence  of  any  regulations  subsisting 
in  the  State  to  which  they  escape,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  to  the  person  justly  claiming 
their  service  or  labor." 

After  the  engrossment,  Sept.  15, — 

"  Article  IV.,  Sec.  2,  the  3d  paragraph,  the  term  '  legally'  was  struck  out,  and  the  words 
'  under  the  laws  thereof  '  inserted  after  the  word  '  State,*'  in  compliance  with  the  wishes 
of  some  who  thought  the  term  '  legal '  equivocal,  and  favoring  the  idea  that  Slavery  was 
i««.oi  jn  a  moral  view." 


I  deem  it  established,  then,  that  the  Constitution  does  not  recognize  property 
in  men,  but  leaves  that  question,  as  between  the  States,  to  the  law  of  nature 
and  of  nations.  That  law,  as  expounded  by  Vattel,  is  founded  in  the  rea 
son  of  things.  When  God  had  created  the  earth  with  its  wonderful  adaptations, 
he  gave  dominion  over  it  to  man, — absolute  human  dominion.  The  title  thus 
bestowed  would  have  been  incomplete  if  the  lord  of  all  terrestrial  things  could 
himself  have  been  the  property  of  his  fellow-man.  The  right  to  have  a  slave 
implies  the  right  in  some  one  to  make  the  slave.  That  right  must  be  equal 
and  mutual ;  and  that  would  resolve  society  into  a  state  of  perpetuaf 'war.  But 
if  we  grant  the  original  equality  of  the  States,  and  grant  also  the  Constitutional 
recognition  of  slaves  as  property,  still  the  argument  we  are  considering  fails, 
because  the  States  were  not  parties  to  the  Constitution  as  States.  It  is  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  people  of  the  United  States.  But  even  if  the  States  continued 
as  States,  they  surrendered  their  equality  as  States,  aud  submitted  themselves 
to  the  sway  of  the  numerical  majority,  with  qualifications  or  checks  ;  first,  of  the 
representation  of  three-fifths  of  slaves  in  the  ratio  of  representation  and  taxa 
tion  ;  and,  secondly,  of  the  equal  representation  of  States  in  the  Senate. 

The  proposition  of  an  established  classification  of  States  as  Slave  States  and 
Free  States,  as  asserted  by  some,  and  into  northern  and  southern,  as  asserted 
by  others,  seems  to  me  purely  imaginary,  and  of  course  the  supposed  equili 
brium  of  those  classes  is  a  mere  conceit.  This  must  be  so  ;  because,  when  the 
Constitution  was  adopted,  twelve  of  the  thirteen  States  were  Slave  States, 
and  so  there  was  no  equilibrium.  And  so  as  to  the  classification  of  States,  as 
Northern  States  and  Southern  States.  It  is  the  maintenance  of  Slavery  by 
law  in  a  State,  not  parallels  of  latitude,  that  makes  it  a  Southern  State,  and 
the  absence  of  this  that  makes  it  a  Northern  State.  And  so  all  the  States, 
save  one,  were  Southern  States,  and  there  was  no  equilibrium.  But  the  Con 
stitution  was  made  not  only  for  Southern  and  Northern  States,  but  for  States 
neither  one  nor  the  other,  but  Western  States.  Their  coming  in  was  fore 
seen  and  provided  for. 

It  needs  little  argument  to  show  that  the  idea  of  a  joint-stock  association,  or 
a  copartnership,  as  applicable  even  by  its  analogies  to  the  United  States,  is 
erroneous,  with  all  the  consequences  fancifully  deduced  from  it.  The  Unitec^ 
States  are  a  political  State  or  organized  society,  whose  end  is  government 
for  the  security,  welfare,  and  happiness  of  all  who  live  under  its  protection. 
The  theory  I  am  combating  reduces  the  objects  of  government  to  the  mere 


15 

spoils  of  conquest.  On  the  ^contrary  of  a  theory  so  debasing,  the  preamble  of 
the  Constitution  not  only  asserts  the  sovereignty  to  be  not  in  the  States  but 
in  the  people,  but  also  promulgates  the  objects  of  the  Constitution. 

"  We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  order  to  form  a  moi-e  perfect  Union,  establish 
justice  insure  domestic  tranquillity,  provide  for  the  common  defence,  promote  the  gen 
eral  welfare,  and  secure  the  blessings  of  Liberty,  do  ordain  and  establish  this  Constitu 
tion." 

Objects  sublime  and  benevolent !  They  exclude  the  very  idea  of  conquests, 
to  be  either  divided  among  States,  or  even  enjoyed  by  them  for  the  purpose 
of  securing,  not  the  blessings  of  liberty,  but  the  evils  of  slavery. 

There  is  a  novelty  in  the  principle  of  this  compromise  which  condemns  it. 
Simultaneously  with  the  establishment  of  the  Constitution,  Virginia  ceded  her 
domain,  which  then  extended  to  the  Mississippi,  and  was  even  claimed  to  ex 
tend  to  the  Pacific.  Congress  accepted  it,  and  unanimously  devoted  the  do 
main  to  freedom,  in  the  language  from  which  the  ordinance,  now  so  severely 
condemned,  was  borrowed.  Five  States  have  already  been  organized  on  this 
domain,  from  all  of  which,  in  pursuance  of  that  ordinance,  Slavery  is  excluded. 
How  did  it  happen  that  this  theory  of  the  equality  of  the  States,  of  the  classi 
fication  of  States,  of  the  equilibrium  of  the  States,  of  the  title  of  the  States  to 
common  enjoyment  of  the  domain,  or  to  an  equitable  and  just  partition  be 
tween  them,  was  never  promulgated,  nor  even  dreamed  of  by  the  Slave  States, 
who  unanimously  consented  to  this  ordinance  ? 

There  is  another  aspect  of  the  principle  of  compromise  which  deserves  con 
sideration.  It  assumes  that  Slavery,  if  not  the  only  institution,  is,  in  a  Slave 
State  at  least,  the  ruling  institution,  and  that  this  characteristic  was  recognized 
by  the  Constitution.  But  Slavery  is  only  one  of  many  institutions  there. 
Freedom  is  equally  an  institution  there.  Slavery  is  only  a  temporary,  acci 
dental,  partial,  incongruous  one.  Freedom,  on  the  contrary,  is  a  perpetual, 
organic,  universal  one,  in  harmony  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
The  slaveholder  himself  stands  under  the  protection  of  the  latter,  in  common 
with  all  the  free  citizens  of  the  State. 

But  the  principle  of  this  compromise  gives  complete  ascendency  in  the 
Slave  States,  and  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  to  the  subordinate, 
accidental,  and  incongruous  institution  over  its  antagonist.  To  reduce  this 
claim  for  Slavery  to  an  absurdity,  it  is  only  necessary  to  add,  that  there  are 
only  two  States  in  which  the  slaves  are  a  majority,  and  not  one  in  which  the 
slaveholders  are  not  a  very  disproportionate  minority, 

But  there  is  yet  another  aspect  in  which  this  principle  must  be  examined. 
It  regards  the  domain  only  as  a  possession  to  be  enjoyed  either  in  common  or 
by  partition  by  the  citizens  of  the  old  States.  It  is  true  indeed  that  the  na 
tional  domain  is  ours ;  true  that  it  was  acquired  by  the  prowess  and  wealth  of 
the  whole  country ;  but  we  hold,  nevertheless,  no  arbitrary  power  over  it. 
We  hold  no  arbitrary  authority  over  anything,  whether  acquired  lawfully  or 
by  usurpation.  The  Constitution  regulates  our  stewardship.  The  Constitu 
tion  devotes  the  domain  to  union,  to  justice,  to  defence,  to  welfare  and  liber 
ty.  But  there  is  a  higher  law  than  the  Constitution,  which  regulates  our  au 
thority  over  the  domain,  and  devotes  it  to  the  same  noble  purposes.  The  terri 
tory  is  a  part — no  inconsiderable  part — of  the  common  heritage  of  mankind, 
bestowed  upon  them  by  the  Creator  of  the  Universe.  We  are  his  stewards, 
and  must  so  discharge  our  trust  as  to  secure  in  the  highest  attainable  degree 
their  happiness.  How  momentous  that  trust  is,  we  may  learn  from  the  insti 
tutions  of  the  founder  of  modern  philosophy. 

"  No  man  can,  by  care-taking,"  as  the  Scriptures  saith,  "  add  a  whit  to  his  stature  in 
this  little  model  of  man's  body  ;  but  in  the  great  frame  of  kingdoms  and  common 
wealths,  it  is  in  the  power  of  princes  or  estates  to  add  amplitude  and  greatness  to  their 
kingdoms  :  for  by  introducing  such  ordinances,  constitutions,  and  customs,  as  are  wise, 
they  may  sow  greatness  to  their  posterity  and  successors.  But  these  things  are  com 
monly  not  observed,  but  left  to  take  their  chance." 

We  are  an  estate,  and  ar>j  deliberating  for  the  Commonwealth  just  as  our 
fathers  deliberated  in  establishing  the  institutions  we  enjoy.  Whatever  supe 
riority  there  is  in  our  condition  and  hopes  over  those  of  any  other  "  kingdom"  or 


16 

"  estate"  is  due  to  the  fortunate  circumstance  that  our  ancestors  did  not  leave 
things  to  take  their  chance,  but  that  they  added  amplitude  and  greatness  to 
our  Commonwealth,  by  introducing  such  ordinances,  constitutions,  and  cus 
toms  as  were  wise. 

We,  in  our  time,  have  succeeded  to  the  same  responsibilities,  and  we  cannot 
approach  the  duty  before  us  wisely  or  justly,  except  we  raise  ourselves  to  the 
great  consideration  of  how  we  can  most  certainly  sow  greatness  to  our  poster 
ity  and  successors.  And  now  the  simple,  bold,  and  awful  question,  which  pre 
sents  isself  to  us,  is  this :  Shall  we,  who  are  founding  institutions,  social  and 
political,  for  countless  millions, — shall  we  who  know  by  experience  the  wise 
and  the  just,  and  are  free  to  choose  them,  and  to  reject  the  erroneous  and  the 
unjust, — shall  we  establish  human  bondage,  or  permit  it  by  our  sufferance  to 
be  established  ?  Sir,  our  fathers  would  not  have  hesitated  an  hour.  They 
found  slavery  existing  here,  and  they  left  it  only  because  they  could  not  re 
move  it.  There  is  not  only  no  free  State  which  would  now  establish  it,  but 
there  is  no  slave  State  which,  if  it  had  but  the  free  alternative,  as  we  now 
have,  would  have  founded  slavery.  Indeed,  our  revolutionary  predecessors 
had  precisely  the  same  question  before  them,  in  establishing  an  organic  law 
under  which  the  States  of  Ohio,  Michigan,  Illinois,  Wisconsin,  and  Iowa  have 
since  come  into  the  Union ;  and  they  solemnly  repudiated  and  excluded  Slav 
ery  from  those  States  forever.  I  confess  that  the  most  alarming  evidence  of 
our  degeneracy  which  has  yet  been  given,  is  found  in  the  fact  that  we  even  de 
bate  such  a  question. 

Sir,  there  is  no  Christian  nation  that,  free  to  choose  as  we  are,  would 
establish  Slavery.  I  speak  on  due  consideration,  because  Britain,  France,  and 
Mexico  have  abolished  Slavery,  and  all  other  European  States  are  preparing 
to  abolish  it  as  rapidly  as  they  can. 

We  cannot  establish  Slavery,  because  there  are  certain  elements  of  the 
security,  welfare,  and  greatness  of  nations,  which  we  all  admit,  or  ought  to 
admit  and  require,  as  essential ;  and  these  are — the  security  of  natural  rights, 
the  diffusion  of  knowledge,  and  the  freedom  of  industry.  Slavery  is  incom 
patible  with  all  of  these ;  and  just  in  proportion  to  the  extent  that  it  prevails 
and  controls  in  any  republican  State,  just  to  that  extent  it  subverts  the 
principle  of  Democracy,  and  converts  the  State  into  an  aristocracy  or 
despotism.  I  will  not  offend  sensibilities  by  drawing  my  proof  from  the 
Slave  States  existing  among  ourselves,  but  I  will  draw  them  from  the  greatest 
of  the  European  Slave  States.  The  population  of  Russia,  in  Europe,  in  1844, 
was  54,251,000.  Of  these  were  serfs,  53,500,000  ;  the  residue,  nobles,  clergy, 
merchants,  &c.,  751,000.  The  imperial  government  abandons  the  control 
over  the  fifty-three  and  a  half  millions  to  their  owners,  and  the  residue,  in 
cluded  in  the  751,000,  are  thus  a  privileged  clan  or  aristocracy.  If  ever  the 
government  interferes  at  all  with  the  serfs,  who  are  the  only  laboring 
population,  it  is  by  edicts,  designed  to  abridge  the  opportunities  of  education, 
and  thus  continue  their  debasement.  What  was  the  origin  of  this  system  ? 
Conquest ;  in  which  thu  captivity  of  the  conquered  was  made  perpetual  and 
hereditary. 

This,  it  seems  to  me,  is  identical  with  American  Slavery,  only  at  one  and 
the  same  time  exaggerated  by  the  greater  disproportion  between  the  privileged 
classes  and  the  slaves  in  their  respective  numbers,  and  yet  relieved  of  the 
unhappiest  feature  of  American  Slavery — the  distinction  of  castes.  What 
but  this  renders  Russia  at  once  the  most  arbitrary  despotism,  and  the  most 
barbarous  State  in  Europe  ?  And  what  is  its  effect  but  industry  comparatively 
profitless,  and  sedition  not  occasional  and  partial,  but  chronic  and  pervading 
the  empire  ?  With  Massachusetts  and  Ohio  among  us,  shall  we  pass  by  their 
free  and  beneficent  examples,  and  select  our  institutions  from  the  dominions 
of  the  Czar  ? 

I  cannot  stop  to  debate  lo'ng  with  those  who  maintain  that  Slavery  is  in 
itself  practically  economical  and  humane.  I  might  be  content  with  saying 
that  there  are  some  axioms  in  political  science  that  a  statesman  or  a  founder 


17 

of  States  may  adopt,  especially  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  and 
that  among  these  axioms  are  these :  — 

That  all  men  are  created  equal,  and  have  inalienable  rights  of  life,  liberty, 
and  the  choice  of  pursuits  of  happiness ; 

That  knowledge  promotes  virtue,  and  righteousness  exaltcth  a  nation ; 

That  Freedom  is  preferable  to  Slavery,  and  that  democratic  governments, 
when  they  can  be  maintained  by  acquiescence  without  force,  are  preferable 
to  institutions  exercising  arbitrary  and  irresponsible  power. 

It  remains  only  to  say,  on  this  part  of  the  subject,  that  Slavery,  being  in 
congruous  and  repugnant,  is  dangerous  to  the  safety  of  the  State.  The  con 
servative  principle  of  the  State  is  the  security  of  the  voluntary  acquiescence 
of  the  people.  That  acquiescence  is  obtained  by  universal  suffrage,  which 
demands,  of  course,  equality  of  knowledge  and  property,  as  far  as  that  is 
practically  attainable  without  injustice  or  oppression.  This  argument  is 
sustained  by  our  own  experience.  There  is  no  danger  menacing  the  Union, 
there  never  has  been  any  that  would  have  menaced  it,  had  Slavery  had  no 
shelter  beneath  its  protection.  If  Slavery,  confined  as  it  now  is,  threatens 
the  invasion  of  the  Constitution,  how  can  we  enlarge  its  boundaries  and  in 
crease  its  influence  without  increasing  the  danger  already  existing  ? 

Whether,  then,  I  regard  merely  the  welfare  of  the  future  inhabitants  of  the 
new  Territories,  or  the  security  and  welfare  of  the  whole  people  of  the  United 
States,  or  the  welfare  of  the  whole  family,  of  mankind,  I  cannot  consent  to 
introduce  Slavery  into  any  part  of  this  continent  which  is  now  exempt  from 
what  seems  to  me  to  be  so  great  an  evil. 

These  are  my  reasons  for  declining  to  compromise  the  questions  relating  to 
Slavery  as  a  condition  of  the  admission  of  California. 

In  acting  upon  an  occasion  so  grave  as  this,  a  respectful  consideration  is 
due  to  the  arguments,  founded  on  extraneous  considerations,  of  Senators  who 
counsel  a  course  different  from  that  which  I  have  preferred. 

The  first  of  these  arguments  is,  that  Congress  has  no  power  to  legislate  on 
the  subject  of  Slavery  within  the  Territories.  Sir,  Congress  has  power  to 
admit  new  States  ;  and  since  Congress  may  admit,  it  follows  that  Congress  may 
reject  new  States.  The  discretion  of  Congress  in  admitting  is  absolute,  ex 
cept  that,  when  admitted,  the  State  must  be  a  republican  State,  and  must  be  a 
State, — that  is,  it  shall  have  the  Constitutional  powers  of  a  State.  But  the 
greater  includes  the  less ;  we  may  impose  conditions  not  inconsistent  with 
those  fundamental  powers.  Boundaries  are  such ;  the  reservation  of  the  pub 
lic  domain  is  such ;  the  right  to  divide  is  such ;  the  ordinance  excluding 
Slavery  is  such  a  condition.  The  organization  of  territory  is  auxiliary  or  pre 
liminary.  It  is  the  inchoate,  initiative  act  of  admission,  and  is  performed 
under  the  clause  granting  the  power  necessary  to  execute  the  express  powers 
of  the  Constitution.  This  power  comes  from  the  treaty -making  power  also, 
and  I  think  it  is  well  traced  to  the  power  to  make  needful  rules  and  regula 
tions  concerning  the  public  domain.  But  the  power  is  here  to  be  exercised, 
however  derived  ;  and  the  right  to  regulate  property,  to  administer  justice  in 
regard  to  property,  is  assumed  in  every  territorial  charter.  If  we  have  power 
to  legislate  concerning  property,  we  have  concerning  personal  rights.  Free 
dom  is  a  personal  right.  The  Constitution  does  not  sanction  property  in  man, 
and  Congress,  being  the  supreme  legislature,  has  the  same  right  in  regard  to 
property  and  rights  in  Territories  that  the  States  would  have  if  organized. 

It  is  insisted  further  that  the  inhibition  is  unnecessary. 

And  here  I  have  to  regret  the  loss  of  able  and  distinguished  Senators  who 
go  with  us  for  the  admission  of  California.  Especially  do  I  regret  the  separa 
tion  from  us  of  the  able  and  distinguished  Senator  from  Missouri  (Mr.  Benton). 
When  that  Senator  announced  that  he  should  not  sustain  the  Proviso  of  Free 
dom,  I  was  induced  to  exclaim, 

Cur  in  theatrum,  Cato  severe  yenisti, 
An  ideo.tantum  veneraS  ut  exires. 

But  that  distinguished  Senator  is  crowning  a  life  of  eminent  public  service  by 
*2 


18 

bringing  the  first  State  of  the  Pacific  into  the  Union,  and,  grateful  to  him  for 
that,  I  freely  leave  to  him  to  determine  for  himself  what  weight  he  will  give  to 
the  cause  of  human  freedom  in  his  action  on  so  grave  an  occasion. 

The  argument  is  that  the  Proviso  is  unnecessary.  I  answer,  then  there  can 
be  no  error  in  insisting  upon  it.  But  why  is  it  unnecessary  ?  It  is  said,  first, 
by  reason  of  the  climate.  If  this  be  so,  why  do  not  the  representatives  of  the 
Slave  States  yield  the  Proviso  ?  They  deny  that  climate  prevents  the  intro 
duction  of  Slavery.  Now,  I  will  leave  nothing  to  contingency.  But  in  truth, 
I  think  the  argument  is  against  the  proposition.  Is  there  any  climate  where 
Slavery  has  not  existed  ?  It  has  prevailed  all  over  Europe,  from  sunny  Italy 
to  bleak  England,  and  is  existing  now,  stronger  than  in  any  other  land,  in  ice 
bound  Russia. 

But  it  will  be  replied  that  this  is  not  African  Slavery.  I  rejoin,  that  only 
makes  the  case  the  stronger.  If  this  vigorous  Saxon  race  of  ours  was  reduced 
to  Slavery  while  it  retained  the  courage  of  semi-barbarism,  in  its  own  high 
northern  latitude,  what  security  does  climate  afford  against  the  transplantation 
of  the  more  gentle,  more  docile,  and  already  enslaved  and  debased  African,  to 
the  genial  clime  of  New  Mexico  and  California  ?  Sir,  there  is  no  climate 
uncongenial  to  Slavery.  It  is  true  it  is  less  productive  than  free  labor  in  many 
northern  countries ;  but  so  it  is  less  productive  than  free  white  labor  in  even 
tropical  climates.  Labor  is  in  quick  demand  in  all  new  countries.  Slave 
labor  is  cheaper  than  free  labor,  and  will  go  first  into  new  regions ;  and 
wherever  it  goes  it  brings  labor  into  dishonor,  and  therefore  free  white  labor 
avoids  competition  with  it.  Sir,  I  might  rely  on  climate,  if  I  had  not  been  born 
in  a  land  where  Slavery  existed,  and  that  land  was  all  north  of  the  40th  par 
allel  of  latitude,  and  if  I  did  not  know  the  struggle  that  it  has  cost,  and  which 
is  yet  going  on,  to  get  complete  relief  from  the  institution  and  its  baleful  con 
sequences. 

But,  Sir,  it  is  said  that  Slavery  is  prevented  by  the  laws  of  God  from  enter 
ing  into  the  Territory  from  which  we  propose  to  inhibit  it.  I  will  look  into 
that  matter  a  little  more  closely.  I  wish,  then,  with  the  utmost  respect  to  ask 
Senators  whether  the  Ordinance  of  1787  was  necessary  or  not  ?  That  Ordi 
nance  has  been  the  subject  of  too  many  eulogiums  to  be  now  pronounced  a 
vague  and  idle  thing.  That  Ordinance  carried  the  prohibition  of  Slavery  quite 
up  to  the  49th  deg.  of  north  latitude,  and  yet  AVC  are  now  told  that  we  can  trust 
the  laws  of  God  without  any  ordinance  to  exclude  Slavery  as  far  down  as  36 
deg.  30  min.  Unfortunately,  too,  the  Ordinance  of  1787  began  on  the  37th 
parallel  of  north  latitude,  so  that  there  is  no  part  of  the  Territory  which  it 
covered,  in  which  Slavery,  according  to  the  present  theory,  was  not  excluded 
by  the  law  of  God.  I  know  no  better  authority  as  to  the  laws  of  God  on  this 
subject  than  one  from  whom  I  have  already  had  occasion  to  quote  with  some 
freedom.  And  it  is  the  opinion  of  Montesquieu  that  it  is  only  the  indolence 
of  mankind,  and  not  the  climate,  which  causes  the  introduction  of  Slavery  any 
where.  There  is  no  climate  where  slavery  is  necessary ;  there  is  none  where 
it  cannot  be  established,  if  the  customs  and  laws  permit. 

I  shall  dwell  only  very  briefly  on  the  argument  derived  from  the  Mexican 
laws.  The  proposition  that  those  laws  must  remain  in  force  until  altered  by 
laws  of  our  own  is  satisfactory  ;  and  so  is  the  proposition  that  those  Mexican 
laws  abolished  and  continue  to  prohibit  slavery ;  and  still  I  deem  an  enact 
ment  by  ourselves  wise  and  even  necessary. 

Both  of  the  propositions  I  have  stated  are  denied  with  just  as  much  confi 
dence  by  Southern  statesmen  and  jurists  as  they  are  affirmed  by  those  of  the 
Free  States.  The  population  of  the  new  Territories  is  rapidly  becoming  an 
American  one,  to  whom  the  Mexican  code  will  seem  a  foreign  one,  entitled  to 
little  deference  or  obedience.  Slavery  has  never  obtained  anywhere  by  ex 
press  legislative  authority,  but  always  by  trampling  down  laws  higher  than  any 
mere  municipal  laws — the  law  of  nature  and  of  nations.  There  can  be  no 
oppression  in  superadding  the  sanction  of  Congress  to  the  authority  which  is 
so  weak  and  so  vehemently  questioned.  And  there  is  some  possibility,  if  not 


19 

a  probability,  that  the  institution  might  obtain  a  foothold  surreptitiously,  if  It 
should  not  be  absolutely  forbidden  by  our  own  authority. 

What  is  insisted  upon,  therefore,  is  not  a  mere  abstraction  or  a  mere  senti 
ment,  as  is  contended  by  those  who  concur  with  us  as  to  admitting  California, 
but  would  waive  the  Proviso.  And  what  is  conclusive  on  the  subject  is,  that 
it  is  conceded  on  all  hands  that  the  effect  of  insisting  on  it  prevents  the  exten 
sion  of  Slavery  into  the  region  to  which  it  is  proposed  to  apply  it.  Again,  it 
is  insisted  that  the  diffusion  of  Slavery  does  not  increase  its  evils.  The  argu 
ment  seems  to  me  merely  specious  and  quite  unsound.  . 

And  this  brings  me  to  the  great  and  all-absorbing  argument  that  the  Union 
is  in  danger  of  being  dissolved,  and  that  it  can  only  be  saved  by  compromise. 

I  do  not  overlook  the  fact  that  the  entire  delegation  from  the  Slave  States, 
although  they  differ  in  the  details  of  compromise  proposed,  and  perhaps  also 
upon  the  exact  circumstances  of  the  crisis,  seem  to  concur  in  the  momentous 
warning.  Nor  do  I  doubt  at  all  the  patriotic  devotion  to  the  Union  which  is 
expressed  by  those  from  whom  this  warning  proceeds.  And  yet,  Sir,  although 
these  warnings  have  been  uttered  with  impassioned  solemnity  in  my  hearing, 
every  day  for  near  three  months,  my  confidence  in  the  Union  remains  un 
shaken.  I  think  they  are  to  be  received  with  no  inconsiderable  distrust, 
because  they  are  uttered  under  the  influence  of  a  controlling  interest  to  be 
secured,  a  paramount  object  to  be  gained, — and  that  is,  an  equilibrium  of 
power  in  the  Republic.  I  think  they  are  to  be  received  with  even  more  dis 
trust,  because,  with  the  most  profound  respect,  they  are  uttered  under  an 
obviously  high  excitement ;  nor  is  that  excitement  an  unnatural  one.  It  is  a 
law  of  our  nature,  that  the  passions  disturb  the  reason  and  judgment  just  in 
proportion  to  the  importance  of  the  occasion  and  the  consequent  necessity  for 
calmness  and  candor.  I  think  they  are  to  be  distrusted,  because  there  is  a 
diversity  of  opinion  in  regard  to  the  nature  and  operation  of  this  excitement. 
The  Senators  from  some  States  say  that  it  has  brought  all  parties  in  that 
region  into  unanimity.  The  Senator  from  Kentucky  says  that  the  danger  lies 
in  the  violence  of  the  party  spirit,  and  refers  us  to  the  difficulties  which  at 
tended  the  organization  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Sir,  in  my  humble  judgment,  it  is  not  the  fierce  conflict  of  parties  that  we 
are  seeing  and  hearing ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  the  agony  of  distracted 
parties  ;  a  convulsion  resulting  from  the  too  narrow  foundations  of  both  and  of 
all  parties, — foundations  laid  in  compromises  of  natural  justice  and  of  human 
liberty.  A  question — a  moral  question — transcending  the  too  narrow  creeds 
of  parties  has  arisen.  The  public  conscience  expands  with  it,  and  the  green 
withes  of  party  associations  give  way  and  break  arid  fall  off  from  it.  No,  Sir,  it 
is  not  the  State  that  is  dying  of  the  fever  of  party  spirit.  It  is  merely  a  para 
lysis  of  parties,  premonitory  of  their  restoration  with  the  new  elements  of 
health  and  vigor  imbibed  from  that  spirit  of  the  age  which  is  so  justly  called 
progress. 

Nor  is  the  evil  that  of  unlicensed,  irregular,  and  turbulent  faction:  We  are 
told  that  twenty  legislatures  are  in  session  burning  like  furnaces,  heating  and 
inflaming  the  popular  passions.  But  those  twenty  legislatures  are  Constitutional 
furnaces.  They  are  performing  their  customary  functions,  imparting  healthful 
heat  and  vitality,  while  within  their  Constitutional  jurisdiction.  If  they  rage 
beyond  its  limits,  the  popular  passions  of  this  country  are  not  at  all,  I  think,  in 
danger  of  being  inflamed  to  excess.  No,  Sir,  let  none  of  those  fires  be  extin 
guished.  Forever  let  them  burn  and  blaze.  They  are  neither  ominous  meteors 
nor  baleful  comets  ;  but  planets;  and  bright  and  intense  as  their  heat  may  be, 
it  is  their  native  temperature,  and  they  must  still  obey  the  law  which  by  attrac 
tion  toward  the  centre  holds  them  in  their  spheres. 

I  see  nothing  in  that  conflict  between  the  Southern  and  the  Northern  States, 
or  between  their  representative  bodies,  which  seems  to  be  on  all  sides  of  me 
assumed.  Not  a  word  of  menace,  not  a  word  of  anger,  not  an  intemperate 
word,  has  been  uttered  in  any  Northern  legislature.  They  firmly  but  calmly 
assert  their  convictions,  but  at  the  same  time  they  assert  their  unqualified  pur- 


20 

pose   to  submit  to  the   common   arbiter,   and   for  weal  or  woe  abide  the 
fortunes  of  the  Union. 

What  if  there  be  less  of  moderation  in  the  legislatures  of  the  South.  It  only 
indicates  on  which  side  the  balance  is  inclining,  and  that  the  decision  of  the 
government  is  near  at  hand.  1  argue  with  those  who  say  that  there  can  he  no 
peaceful  dissolution — no  dissolution  of  the  Union  by  the  secession  of  States,  but 
that  disunion,  dissolution,  happen  when  it  may,  will  and  must  be  revolution. 
I  discover  no  omens  of  revolution.  The  predictions  of  the  political  astrolo 
gers  do  not  argue  as  to  time  or  manner  in  which  it  is  to  occur.  According  to 
the  authority  of  the  Hon.  Senator  from  Alabama,  (Mr.  Clemens,)  the  event  has 
already  happened,  and  the  Union  is  now  in  ruins.  According  to  the  horoscope 
of  the  Hon.  Senator  from  Mississippi,  (Mr.  Foote,)  it  was  to  take  place  on  a 
day  already  past.  According  to  the  Hon.  and  distinguished  Senator  from 
South  Carolina,  (Mr.  Calhoun,)  it  is  not  to  be  immediate,  but  to  be  developed 
by  time. 

[Mr.  FOOTE  here  interposed  and  disowned  the  construction  which  had  been 
put  upon  his  remarks,  and  made  further  explanations.] 

Mr.  SEWAKD — I  am  very  happy  to  have  given  the  Senator  an  opportunity 
to  correct  the  erroneous  impression  which  the  remark  which  I  have  referred  to 
had  made.  Now  the  Hon.  Senator  will  do  me  the  justice  to  allow  that  I  am  at 
liberty  to  subtract  one  prediction  form  the  political  almanac,  and  so  the  pre 
dictions  lose  so  much  of  importance. 

I  see  no  omens  of  revolution.  What  are  the  omens  to  which  our  attention 
is  directed  ?  I  see  nothing  but  a  broad  difference  of  opinion  here,  and  the 
excitement  consequent  upon  it. 

I  have  observed  that  revolutions  which  begin  in  the  palace  seldom  go  be 
yond  the  palace  walls,  and  these  affect  only  the  dynasty  which  reigns  there. 
This  revolution,  if  I  understand  it,  began  here  in  the  Senate  a  year  ago,  when 
the  Representatives  from  Southern  States  assembled  here  and  addressed  their 
constituents  on  what  was  called  the  aggressions  of  the  Northern  States.  No 
revolution  was  designed  at  that  time,  and  all  that  has  happened  since  is  the 
return  to  Congress  of  legislative  resolutions,  which  seem  to  me  to  be  conven 
tional  responses  to  the  address  which  emanated  from  the  capital. 

Sir,  in  any  condition  of  society  there  can  be  no  revolution  without  a  cause — 
an  adequate  cause.  What  cause  exists  here  ?  We  are  admitting  a  new 
State,  but  there  is  nothing  new  in  that — we  have  already  admitted  seventeen 
before.  But  it  is  said  that  the  Slave  States  are  in  danger  of  losing  political 
power  by  the  admission  of  the  new  State.  Well,  Sir,  is  there  anything  new 
in  that  ?  The  SUve  States  have  always  been  losing  political  power,  and  they 
always  will  be  while  they  have  any  to  lose.  At  first  twelve  of  the  thirteen 
States  were  Slave  States.  Now  only  fifteen  of  the  thirty  are  Slave  States. 
Moreover,  the  change  is  constitutionally  made,  and  the  government  was  con 
structed  so  as  to  permit  changes  of  the  balance  of  power,  in  obedience  to 
changes  of  the  forces  of  the  body  politic.  DANTON  used  to  say,  "  It 's  all 
well  while  the  people  cry  DANTON  and  ROBESPIERRE,  but  woe  for  me  if 
ever  the  people  learn  to  say,  ROBESPIERRE  and  DANTON  ! "  That  is  all  of 
it,  Sir.  The  people  have  been  accustomed  to  say,  the  South  and  North — 
they  are  beginning  now  to  say,  the  North  and  the  South. 

Sir,  those  who  would  alarm  us  with  the  terrors  of  revolution  have  not  well 
considered  the  structure  of  this  government  and  the  organization  of  its 
forces.  It  is  a  Democracy  of  property  and  persons,  with  a  fair  approximation 
toward  Universal  Education,  and  operating  by  means  of  Universal  Suffrage. 
The  constituent  members  of  this  Democracy  are  the  only  persons  who  could 
subvert  it ;  and  they  are  not  the  citizens  of  a  metropolis,  like  Paris,  or  of  a 
region  subjected  to  the  influences  of  a  metropolis,  like  France,  but  they  are 
husbandmen  dispersed  over  this  broad  land,  on  the  mountain,  and  on  the 
plain,  and  on  the  prairie,  from  the  Ocean  to  the  Rocky  Mountains,  and  from 
the  Great  Lakes  to  the  Gulf.  And  this  people  are  now,  while  we  are  discuss 
ing  their  imaginary  danger,  at  peace  and  in  their  happy  homes,  and  as  un- 


21 

concerned  and  even  as  uninformed  of  their  peril  as  they  are  of  events  occur 
ring  in  the  moon.  Nor  have  the  alarmists  made  due  allowance  in  their 
calculations  for  the  influence  of  conservative  reaction — strong  in  any  govern 
ment,  and  irresistible  in  a  rural  Republic  operating  by  universal  suffrage. 
That  principle  of  reaction  is  due  to  the  force  of  the  habits  of  acquiescence 
and  loyalty  among  people.  No  man  better  understood  this  principle  than 
MACHIAVELLI,  who  has  told  us  in  regard  to  factions  that  "  no  safe  reliance 
can  be  placed  in  the  force  of  Nature  and  the  bravery  of  words  except  it  be 
corroborated  by  custom."  Do  the  alarmists  remember  that  this  government 
has  stood  sixty  years  already  without  exacting  one  drop  of  blood — that  this 
government  has  stood  sixty  years,  and  treason  is  an  obsolete  crime?  That 
day  I  trust  is  far  off  when  the  fountains  of  popular  contentment  shall  be 
broken  up — but  whenever  it  shall  come  it  will  bring  forth  a  higher  illustration 
than  has  ever  yet  been  given  of  the  excellence  of  the  Democratic  system. 
For  then  it  will  be  seen  how  calmly,  how  firmly,  how  nobly  a  great  people 
can  act  in  preserving  their  Constitution,  when  "  Love  of  Country  moveth, 
Example  teacheth,  Company  comfbrteth,  Emulation  quickencth,  and  Glory 
exalteth." 

When  the  founders  of  the  new  Republic  of  the  South  come  to  draw  over 
the  face  of  this  empire,  along  or  between  its  parallels  of  latitude  or  longitude, 
their  ominous  lines  of  dismemberment,  soon  to  be  broadly  and  deeply  shaded 
with  fraternal  blood,  they  may  come  to  the  discovery  then,  if  not  before,  that 
the  national  and  even  the  political  connections  of  the  region  embraced  for 
bids  such  a  partition  ;  that  its  passable  divisions  are  not  northern  and  southern 
at  all,  but  eastern  and  western,  Atlantic  and  Pacific,  and  that  nature  and 
commerce  have  allied  indissolubly  for  weal  and  woe  the  seceders,  and  those 
from  whom  they  are  to  be  separated  ;  that  while  they  would  rush  into  a  civil 
war  to  restore  an  imaginary  equilibrium  between  the  Northern  States  and  the 
Southern  States,  that  a  new  equilibrium  had  taken  its  place,  in  which  all  those 
States  are  on  the  one  side  and  the  boundless  West  was  on  the  other. 

Sir,  when  the  founders  of  the  new  Republic  of  the  South  come  to  trace  those 
fearful  lines,  they  will  indicate  what  portions  of  the  continent  are  to  be  broken 
off  from  their  connection  with  the  Atlantic  through  the  St.  Lawrence,  the 
Hudson,  the  Delaware,  the  Potomac,  and  the  Mississippi ;  what  portion  of  this 
people  are  to  be  denied  the  use  of  the  lakes,  the  railroads,  and  the  canals, 
now  constituting  common  and  customary  avenues  of  travel,  trade,  and  social 
intercourse ;  what  families  and  kindred  are  to  be  separated,  and  converted 
into  enemies,  and  what  States  are  to  be  the  scenes  of  perpetual  border  war 
fare,  aggravated  by  interminable  horrors  of  interminable  insurrection.  When 
those  portentous  lines  shall  be  drawn,  they  will  disclose  what  portion  of  this 
people  is  to  retain  the  army  and  the  navy,  and  the  flag  of  so  many  victories ; 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  what  portion  of  this  people  is  to  be  subjected  to  new 
and  ruinous  imposts,  direct  taxes,  and  forced  loans  and  conscriptions,  to  main 
tain  an  opposing  army  and  opposing  navy,  and  the  new  and  hateful  banner  of 
sedition.  Then  the  projectors  of  the  new  Republic  of  the  South  will  meet  the 
question — and  they  may  well  prepare  now  to  answer  it — "  What  is  all  this 
for  ? — what  intolerable  wrong,  what  unfraternal  injustice,  has  rendered  these 
calamities  unavoidable  ? — what  gain  will  this  unnatural  revolution  bring  to 
us  ?"  The  answer  will  be — "  All  this  is  done  to  secure  the  institution  of 
African  Slavery." 

And  then,  if  not  before,  the  question  will  be  discussed,  What  is  this  insti 
tution  of  slavery,  that  it  should  cause  these  unparalleled  sacrifices,  and  these 
disastrous  afflictions?  And  this  will  be  the  answer.  When  the  Spaniards, 
few  in  number,  discovered  the  western  Indies  and  the  adjacent  continental 
America,  they  needed  labor  to  draw  forth  from  its  virgin  stores  some  speedy 
return  to  the  cupidity  of  the  court  and  bankers  of  Madrid ;  they  enslaved  the 
indolent,  inoffensive,  and  confiding  natives,  who  perished  by  thousands,  and 
even  by  millions,  under  that  new  and  unnatural  bondage.  A  humane  eccle 
siastic  advised  the  substitution  of  Africans  reduced  to  captivity  in  their  native 
wars,  and  a  pious  Princess  adopted  the  suggestion,  with  a  dispensation  from 


22 

the  Head  of  the  Church,  granted  on  the  ground  of  the  prescriptive  right  of 
the  Christian  to  enslave  the  heathen  to  effect  his  conversion.  The  colonists 
of  North  America,  innocent  in  their  unconsciousness  of  wrong,  encouraged 
the  slave  traffic,  and  thus  the  labor  of  subduing  their  territory  devolved  chiefly 
upon  the  African  race.  A  happy  conjunction  brought  on  an  awakening  of 
the  conscience  of  mankind  to  the  injustice  of  slavery,  simultaneously  with  the 
independence  of  the  colonies.  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Rhode  Island, 
New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania  wel 
comed  and  embraced  the  spirit  of  universal  emancipation  ;  renouncing  luxury, 
they  secured  influence  and  empire.  But  the  States  of  the  South,  misled  by  a 
new  and  profitable  cultivation,  elected  to  maintain  and  perpetuate  Slavery, 
and  thus,  choosing  luxury,  they  lost  power  and  empire. 

When  this  answer  shall  be  given,  it  will  appear  that  the  question  of  dis 
solving  the  Union  is  a  complex  question — that  it  embraces  the  fearful  issue 
whether  the  Union  shall  stand,  and  Slavery,  under  the  steady,  peaceful  action 
of  moral,  social,  and  political  causes,  be  removed  by  gradual  voluntary  effort 
and  compensation,  or  whether  the  Union  shall  be  dissolved,  and  civil  wars  en 
sue,  bringing  on  violent  but  complete  and  immediate  emancipation.  We  are 
now  arrived  at  that  stage  of  our  national  progress  when  that  crisis  can  be 
foreseen,  when  we  must  foresee  it.  It  is  directly  before  us.  Its  shadow  is 
upon  us.  It  darkens  the  legislative  halls,  the  temples  of  worship,  and  the 
home  and  the  hearth.  Every  question,  political,  civil,  or  ecclesiastical,  how 
ever  foreign  to  the  subject,  Slavery  brings  up,  Slavery  is  an  incident,  and  the 
incident  supplants  the  principal  question.  We  hear  of  nothing  but  Slavery, 
and  we  can  talk  of  nothing  but  Slavery.  And  now  it  seems  to  me  that  all  our 
difficulties,  embarrassments,  and  dangers  arise  not  out  of  unlawful  perversions 
of  the  question  of  Slavery,  as  some  suppose,  but  out  of  the  want  of  moral  cour 
age  to  meet  this  question  of  emancipation  as  we  ought.  Consequently  we 
hear  on  one  side,  demands — absurd,  indeed,  but  yet  unceasing — for  an  imme 
diate  and  unconditional  abolition  of  Slavery,  as  if  any  power  except  the  peo 
ple  of  the  Slave  States  could  abolish  it,  and  as  if  they  could  be  moved  to  abol 
ish  it  by  merely  sounding  the  trumpet  violently  and  proclaiming  emancipa 
tion,  while  the  institution  was  interwoven  with  all  their  social  and  political 
interests,  constitutions,  and  customs. 

On  the  other  hand,  our  statesmen  say  that  Slavery  has  always  existed,  and 
for  aught  they  know,  or  can  do,  it  always  must  exist,  God  permitting  it,  and 
He  only  can  indicate  the  way  to  remove  it ;  as  if  the  Supreme  Creator,  af 
ter  giving  us  the  instructions  of  his  providence  and  revelation  for  the  illumi 
nation  of  our  minds  and  consciences,  did  not  leave  us  in  all  human  transac 
tions,  with  due  invocations  of  his  Holy  Spirit,  to  seek  out  his  will,  and  execute 
it  for  ourselves. 

Here,  then,  is  the  point  of  my  separation  from  both  of  these  parties.  I  feel 
assured  that  Slavery  will  give  way,  and  must  give  way,  to  the  salutary  instruc 
tions  of  economy,  and  to  the  ripening  influences  of  humanity, — that  emanci 
pation  is  inevitable,  and  is  near, — that  it  may  be  hastened  or  hindered,  and  that 
whether  it  be  peaceful  or  violent  depends  upon  the  government,  whether  it 
be  hastened  or  hindered, — that  all  measures  which  justify  Slavery  or  extend  it, 
tend  to  the  consummation  of  violence, — all  that  check  its  extension  and  abate 
its  strength,  tend  to  its  peaceful  extirpation.  But  I  will  adopt  now  none  but 
lawful,  Constitutional,  and  peaceful  means  to  secure  even  that  end ;  and  none 
such  can  I  or  will  I  forego. 

Nor  do  I  know  any  important  or  responsible  body  that  proposes  to  do  more 
than  this.  No  Free  State  claims  to  extend  its  legislation  into  a  Free  State. 
None  claims  that  Congress  shall  usurp  power  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  slave 
States.  None  claims  that  any  violent,  unconstitutional,  or  unlawful  measures 
shall  be  resorted  to.  And  on  the  other  hand,  if  we  offer  no  scheme  or  plan 
for  the  adoption  of  the  Slave  States,  with  the  assent  or  co-operation  of  Con 
gress,  it  is  only  because  the  Slave  States  are  unwilling  as  yet  to  receive  such 
suggestions,  or  even'  to  entertain  the  question  of  emancipation  in  any  State. 

But,  Sir,  I  will  take  this  occasion  to  say,  that  while  I  cannot  agree  with  the 


23 

Hon.  Senator  from  Massachusetts  in  proposing  to  devote  $80,000,000  to  re 
move  the  free  colored  population  from  the  Slave  States,  and  thus,  as  it  appears 
to  me,  fortify  Slavery, — there  is  no  reasonable  limit  to  which  I  am  not  willing  to 
go  in  applying  the  national  treasures  to  effect  the  peaceful  voluntary  removal 
of  Slavery  itself. 

I  have  thus  endeavored  to  show  that  there  is  not  now,  and  is  not  likely  to 
occur,  any  adequate  cause  for  revolution  in  regard  to  Slavery.  But  you  reply 
that,  nevertheless,  you  must  have  guaranties.  And  the  first  one  'is  for  the 
surrender  of  fugitives  from  labor.  That  guaranty  you  cannot  have,  as  I 
have  already  shown,  because  you  cannot  roll  back  the  tide  of  social  progress. 
'You  must  be  content  with  what  you  have.  If  you  wage  war  against  us,  yon 
can,  at  most,  only  conquer  us,  and  then  all  you  can  get  will  be  a  treaty,  and 
that  you  have  already.  But  you  insist  on  a  guaranty  against  the  abolition  of 
Slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  or  war.  Well,  when  you  shall  have  de 
clared  war  against  us,  what  shall  hinder  us  from  immediately  decreeing  that 
Slavery  shall  cease  within  the  national  capital  ? 

You  say  that  you  will  not  submit  to  the  exclusion  of  slaves  from  the  new 
Territories.  What  will  you  gain  by  resistance  ?  Liberty  follows  the  sword, 
although  her  sway  is  one  of  peace  and  beneficence.  Can  you  propagate  Slavery, 
then,  by  the  sword  ? 

You  insist  that  you  cannot  submit  to  the  freedom  with  which  Slavery  is  dis 
cussed  in  the  Free  States.  Will  war — a  war  for  Slavery — crush  or  even  mod 
erate  that  discussion  ?  No,  Sir,  that  discussion  will  not  cease. 

War  would  only  inflame  it  to  a  greater  height.  It  is  a  part  of  the  eternal 
conflict  between  truth  and  error,  between  mind  and  physical  force,  tlie  con 
flict  of  man  against  the  obstacles  which  oppose  his  way  to  an  ultimate  and  glo 
rious  destiny.  It  will  go  on  until  you  shall  terminate  it  in  the  only  way  in 
which  any  State  or  nation  has  terminated  it,  by  yielding  to  it — yielding  in 
your  own  time  and  in  your  own  manner,  indeed,  but  nevertheless  yielding  to 
the  progress  of  emancipation. 

You  will  do  this  sooner  or  later,  whatever  may  be  your  opinions  now ;  be 
cause  nations  which  were  prudent  and  humane,  and  wise  as  you  are,  have 
done  so  already. 

Sir,  the  Slave  States  have  no  reason  to  fear  that  this  inevitable  change  will 
go  too  far  or  too  fast  for  their  safety  or  welfare.  It  cannot  well  go  too  fast  or 
too  far,  if  the  only  alternative  of  it  is  a  war  of  races. 

But  it  cannot  go  too  fast.  Slavery  has  a  reliable  and  accommodating  ally 
in  a  party  in  the  Free  States  which,  though  it  claims  to  be  and  doubtless  is,  in 
many  respects,  a  party  of  progress,  finds  its  sole  security  for  its  political  power 
in  the  support  and  aid  of  Slavery  in  the  Slave  States.  Of  course  I  do  not  in 
clude  in  that  party  those  who  are  now  co-operating  in  maintaining  the  cause 
of  Freedom  against  Slavery.  I  am  not  of  this  party  of  progress  in  the  North 
which  lends  its  support  to  Slavery.  But  it  is  only  just  and  candid  that  I  should 
be  a  witness  to  their  fidelity  to  the  interests  of  Slavery.  Slavery  has,  moreover, 
a  more  natural  alliance  with  the  aristocracy  of  the  North  and  with  the  aristo 
cracy  of  Europe. 

So  long  as  slavery  shall  possess  the  cotton  fields,  the  sugar  fields,  and  the 
rice  fields  of  the  world,  so  long  will  commerce  and  capital  yield  its  toleration 
and  sympathy.  Emancipation  is  a  democratic  revolution.  It  is  capital  that 
arrests  all  democratic  revolutions.  It  was  capital  that  in  a  single  year  rolled 
back  the  tide  of  revolution  on  the  base  of  the  Carpathian  Mountains,  across  the 
Danube  and  the  Rhine,  into  the  streets  of  Paris.  It  is  capital  that  is  rapidly 
rolling  back  the  throne  of  Napoleon  into  the  chambers  of  the  Tuilleries. 

Slavery  has  a  guaranty  still  stronger  than  these  in  the  prejudices  of  caste 
and  color,  which  induce  even  large  majorities  in  all  the  Free  States  to  regard 
sympathy  with  the  slave  as  an  act  of  unmanly  humiliation  and  self-abasement. 

Although  philosophy  meekly  expresses  her  distrust  of  the  asserted  natural 
superiority  of  the  white  race,  and  confidently  denies  that  such  a  superiority, 
if  justly  claimed,  could  give  a  title  to  oppression,  there  remains  one  more 


24 

guaranty — one  that  has  seldom  failed  you,  and  will  seldom  fail  you  hereafter. 
New  States  cling  in  closer  reliance  than  the  older  ones  to  the  federal  power. 
The  concentration  of  the  slave  power  enables  you  for  long  periods  to  control 
the  federal  government,  with  the  aid  of  the  new  States.  I  do  not  know  the 
sentiments  of  the  Representatives  of  California ;  but  my  word  for  it,  if  they 
should  be  admitted  on  this  floor  to-day  against  your  most  obstinate  opposition, 
they  would,  on  all  questions  really  affecting  your  interests,  be  found  at  your 
side.  With  these  allies  and  aids  to  break  the  force  of  emancipation,  there 
will  be  no  disunion  and  no  secession.  I  do  not  say  that  there  may  not  be  dis 
turbance,  though  I  do  not  apprehend  even  that.  Absolute  regularity  and  or 
der  in  administration  have  not  yet  been  established  in  any  government,  and 
unbroken  popular  tranquillity  has  not  yet  been  attained  in  even  the  most  ad 
vanced  condition  of  human  society.  The  machinery  of  our  system  is  necessarily 
complex.  A  pivot  may  fall  out  here — a  lever  may  be  displaced  there — but  the 
machinery  will  soon  recover  its  regularity,  and  move  on  just  as  before,  with 
even  better  adaptation  and  adjustment  to  overcome  new  obstructions. 

There  are  many  well-disposed  persons  who  are'  alarmed  at  the  occurrence 
of  any  such  disturbance. 

The  failure  of  a  legislative  body  to  organize  is,  to  their  apprehension,  a  fear 
ful  omen,  and  an  extra  Constitutional  assemblage  to  consult  upon  public  af 
fairs  is  with  them  cause  for  desperation.  Even  Senators  speak  of  the  Union 
as  if  it  existed  only  by  consent,  and,  as  it  seems  to  be  implied,  by  the  assent 
of  the  Legislatures  of  the  States.  On  the  contrary,  the  Union  was  not  found 
ed  in  voluntary  choice,  nor  does  it  exist  by  voluntary  consent. 

A  Union  was  proposed  to  the  Colonies  by  FRANKLIN  and  others,  in  1 754  : 
but  such  was  their  aversion  to  an  abridgment  of  their  own  importance  re 
spectively,  that  it  was  rejected  even  under  the  pressure  of  a  disastrous  invasion 
by  France. 

A  Union  of  choice  was  proposed  to  the  Colonies  in  1775 ;  but  so  strong  was 
their  opposition  that  they  went  through  the  War  of  Independence  without 
having  established  more  than  a  mere  Council  of  Confederation. 

But  with  Independence  came  enlarged  interests  of  agriculture,  absolutely 
new  interests  of  manufactures,  interests  of  commerce,  of  fisheries,  of  naviga 
tion,  of  a  common  domain,  common  debts,  of  common  revenues  and  taxation, 
of  the  administration  of  justice,  of  public  defence,  of  public  honor,  in  short,  in 
terests  of  common  nationality  and  sovereignty ;  interests  which  at  last  com 
pelled  the  adoption  of  a  more  perfect  Union — a  national  government. 

The  genius,  talent,  and  learning  of  HAMILTON,  of  JAY,  of  MADISON,  sur 
passing,  perhaps,  the  intellectual  power  ever  excited  before  for  the  establish 
ment  of  a  government,  combined  with  the  serene  but  mighty  influence  of 
WASHINGTON,  were  only  sufficient  to  secure  the-  reluctant  adoption  of  the 
Constitution  that  is  now  the  object  of  all  our  affections  and  of  the  hopes  of 
mankind.  No  wonder  that  the  conflicts  in  which  that  Constitution  was  born, 
and  the  almost  desponding  solemnity  of  WASHINGTON  in  his  Farewell  Ad 
dress,  impressed  his  countrymen  and  mankind  with  a  profound  distrust  of  its 
perpetuity  !  No  wonder  that  while  the  murmurs  of  that  day  are  yet  ringing 
in  our  ears,  we  have  cherished  that  distrust  with  pious  reverence  as  a  nation 
al  and  patriotic  sentiment. 

But  it  is  time  to  prevent  abuses  of  that  sentiment.  It  is  time  to  shake  off 
that  fear,  for  fear  is  always  weakness.  It  is  time  to  remember  that  govern 
ment,  even  when  it  arises  by  chance  or  accident,  and  is  administered  capricious 
ly  and  oppressively,  is  ever  the  strongest  of  all  human  institutions,  surviving 
many  social  and  ecclesiastical  changes  and  convulsions,  and  that  this  govern 
ment  of  ours  has  all  the  inherent  strength  common  to  governments,  and  ad 
ded  to  them  is  the  solidity  and  firmness  derived  from  broader  and  deeper 
foundations  in  natural  justice,  and  from  a  better  civil  adaptation  to  promote 
the  welfare  and  happiness  of  mankind. 

The  Union,  the  creation  of  necessities  physical,  moral,  so?,ml,  and  political, 
endures  by  virtue  of  the  same  necessities,  and  thssa  necessities  are  stronger 


25 

than  when  it  was  produced,  and  by  the  greater  amplitude  of  territory  now 
covered  by  it ; — stronger  by  the  six-fold  increase  of  the  society  living  under 
its  beneficent  protection  ; — stronger  by  the  augmentation  ten  thousand  times 
of  the  fields,  the  workshops,  the  mines,  and  the  ships  of  that  society,  of  its  pro 
ductions  of  the  sea,  of  the  plough,  of  the  loom,  and  of  the  anvil,  in  their  con 
stant  circle  of  internal  and  international  exchanges ; — stronger  in  the  long 
rivers  penetrating  regions  before  unknown;— stronger  in  all  the  artificial  roads, 
canals,  and  other  channels  and  avenues  essential  not  only  to  trade  but  to 
defence; — stronger  in  steam  navigation,  in  steam  locomotion  on  the  land, 
and  in  telegraph  communications,  unknown  when  the  Constitution  was  adopt 
ed  ; — stronger  in  the  freedom  and  in  the  growing  empire  of  the  seas ; — stronger 
in  the  element  of  national  honor  in  all  lands,  and  stronger  than  all  in  the  now 
settled  habits  of  veneration  and  affection  for  institutions  so  stupendous  and 
useful. 

The  Union,  then,  IS,  not  merely  because  that  men  choose  that  it  shall  be, 
but  because  some  government  must  exist  here,  and  no  other  government  than 
this  can.  If  it  should  be  dashed  to  atoms  by  the  whirlwind,  the  lightning,  or 
the  earthquake  to-day,  it  would  rise  again  in  all  its  just  and  magnificent  pro 
portions  to-morrow. 

I  have  heard  somewhat  here,  and  almost  for  the  first  time  in  my  life,  of 
divided  allegiance — of  allegiance  to  the  South  and  to  the  Union — of  allegiance 
to  States  severally,  and  to  the  Union.  Sir,  if  sympathies  with  State  emulation 
and  pride  of  achievement  could  be  allowed  to  raise  up  another  sovereign  to 
divide  the  allegiance  of  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  I  might  recognize  the 
claims  of  the  State  to  which  by  birth  and  gratitude  I  belong — to  the  State  of 
Hamilton  and  Jay,  of  Schuyler,  of  the  Clintons  and  of  Fulton — the  State  which, 
with  less  than  200  miles  of  natural  navigation  connected  with  the  ocean,  has, 
by  her  own  enterprise,  secured  to  herself  the  commerce  of  the  continent,  and 
is  steadily  advancing  to  the  command  of  the  commerce  of  the  world.  But  for 
all  this,  I  know  only  one  country  and  one  sovereign — the  United  States  of 
America  and  the  American  People. 

And  such  as  my  allegiance  is,  is  the  loyalty  of  every  other  citizen  of  the 
United  States. 

As  I  speak  he  will  speak  when  his  time  arrives  ;  he  knows  no  other  country 
and  no  other  sovereign  ;  he  has  life,  liberty,  property,  and  precious  affections, 
and  hopes  for  himself  and  for  his  posterity,  treasured  up  in  the  ark  of  the  Union  ; 
he  knows  as  well  and  feels  as  strongly  as  I  do,  that  this  government  is  his  own 
government ;  that  he  is  a  part  of  it ;  that  it  was  established  for  him,  and  that 
it  is  maintained  by  him ;  that  it  is  the  only  truly  wise,  just,  free,  and  equal 
government  that  has  ever  existed ;  that  no  other  government  could  be  so  wise, 
just,  free,  and  equal ;  that  it  is  safer  and  more  beneficent  than  any  which  time 
or  change  could  bring  into  its  place. 

You  may  tell  me,  Sir,  that  although  all  this  may  be  true,  yet,  that  the 
trial  of  faction  has  not  yet  been  made.  Sir,  if  the  trial  of  faction  has  not 
been  made,  it  has  not  been  because  that  faction  has  not  always  existed,  and 
has  not  always  menaced  a  trial,  but  because  faction  could  find  no  fulcrum  on 
which  to  place  the  lever  to  subvert  the  Union,  as  it  can  find  no  fulcrum  now, 
and  in  this  is  my  confidence.  I  would  not  rashly  provoke  this  trial,  but  I  will 
not  suffer  a  fear  which  I  have  not  to  make  me  compromise  one  sentiment, 
one  principle  of  truth  or  justice,  to  avert  a  danger  that  all  experience  teaches 
me  is  purely  chimerical.  Let  those,  then,  who  distrust  the  Union  make  com 
promises  to  save  it.  I  shall  not  impeach  their  wisdom,  as  I  certainly  cannot 
their  patriotism ;  but  indulging  no  such  apprehensions  myself,  I  shall  vote  for 
the  admission  of  California,  directly,  without  conditions,  without  qualification, 
and  without  compromise.  For  the  vindication  of  that  vote  I  look:  not  to  the 
verdict  of  the  passing  hour,  disturbed  as  the  public  mind  now  is  by  conflicting 
interests  and  passions,  but  to  that  period,  happily  not  far  distant,  when  the 
vast  regions  over  which  we  are  now  legislating  shall  have  received  their  des 
tined  inhabitants. 


26 

While  looking  forward  to  that  day,  its  countless  generations  seem  to  me  to 
be  rising  up  and  passing  in  dim  and  shadowy  review  before  us.  And  the 
voice  comes  forth  from  their  reviewed  ranks,  saying,  "  Waste  your  treasures, 
and  your  armies,  if  you  \vill,  raze  your  fortifications  to  the  ground,  sink  your 
navies  into  the  sea,  transmit  to  us  even  a  dishonored  name,  if  you  must ;  but 
the  soil  that  you  hold  in  trust  for  us,  give  it  to  us  free ;  you  found  it  free,  and 
conquered  it  to  extend  a  better  and  surer  freedom  over  it.  Whatever  choice 
you  have  made  for  yourselves,  let  us  have  no  partial  freedom,  let  us  all  be 
free,  let  the  reversion  of  our  broad  domain  descend  to  us  uniucumbered  and 
free  from  the  calamities  and  the  sorrows  of  human  bondage." 


POPULAB,  WORKS  OF  FICTION 

PUBLISHED    BY 

REDDING  &  CO.,  8  State  Street,  Boston. 


7HB  OAXTONS  i  A  FAMILY  PICTURE.    By  Sir 

E.  BULWER  LYTTON 37$ 

IOLAND    OASHEL.    By  CHARLES    LEVER. 

With  Illustrations 60 

'ELHAM;  OR,  TUB  ADVENTURES  OF  A  GENTLE 
MAN.    By  Sir  E.  BULWER  LYTTON        .        .  25 
RAPHAEL  i  on,  PAGES  FROM  THE  BOOK  OF  LIFE 

AT  TWENTY.     By  A.  DE  LAMART1NE      . 
'HE  DISOWNED.    By  E.  BULWER  LYTTON  25 
'HE   MIDNIGHT  SUN:  A  PILGRIMAGE.    By 

Mi«i  BREMER.    Translated  by  MARY  HOWITT 
•HREE     SISTERS    AND     THREE     FOR- 

TUNES  i   OR,  ROSB,  BLANCHE,  AND  VIOLET. 

By  G.  H.  LEWES,  Esq 85 

IEVEREUX.     By  Sir  E.  BUL^VER  LYTTON     .  25 
'HE  DISCIPLINE  OF  LIF.k>  j  OH,  ISABEL  DEN- 

ISON,  A  COUKTBY   NEIGHBORHOOD,   AND   TUB 

MOAT  25 

'HE  BANKER'S  WIFE.    By  Mrs.  GORE         .  12J 
•HIRTY  YEARS   SINCE  5   OH,   THE   RUINED 

FAMILY.  By  G.  P.  R.  JAMES,  Esq.  .  .  .25 
AUL  CLIFFORD.  By  E.  BULWER  LYTTON  25 
IARY  BARTON:  A  TALK  OF  MANCHESTER 

LIFE 25 

'HE  LITTLE  SAVAGE.     By  Capt.  MARRY  AT 
'HE  HISTORY  OF  PENDENNIS,  HIS  FOR 
TUNES  AND  MISFORTUNES,  HIS  FRIENDS  AND  HIS 

URKATEST  ENEMY.    By  W.  M.  THACKERAY. 

With  Illustrations 

'HE  PRESIDENT'S  DAUGHTERS.    LIFE  IN 

SWEUBN.     By    Miss    BREMER.     Translated   by 

MARY  HOWITT 12£ 

IUGENE  ARAM.   By  Sir  E.  BULWER  LYTTON  25 
•HE  GREAT  HOGGARTY  DIAMOND.    By 

W.  M.  THACKERAY 25 

UNA.    LIFE   IN    SWEDEN.    By  Miss   BREMER. 

Translated  by  MARY  HOWITT  .  .  .  .  KJ 
'HE  IMAGE  OF  HIS  FATHER :  A  TALE  OF 

A  YOUNG  MONKEY.  By  the  Brothers  MAYHEW  50 
'HE  FORGERY:  A  TALE.  By  G.  P.  R.  JAMES  25 
'HE  LAST  DAYS  OF  POMPEII.  By  Sir  E. 

BULWER  LYTTON 25 

T.  PATRICK'S  EVE.    By  CHARLES  LEVER  06$ 
'HE    NEIGHBORS:    A  TALE   OF  EVERY-DAY 

LIKK.     By  Miss  BREMER 12£ 

1DWARD  VERNON  »  MY  COUSIN'S  STORY.    By 

E.  V.  CHILttE 50 

'HE    CZARINA «    A  HISTORICAL  ROMANCE  OF 

THB  COURT  OF  RUSSIA.     By  Mrs.  HOFLAND     25 
'HE  FALSE  HEIR.     By  G.  P.  R.  JAMES,  Esq.  12* 
,'HE  BACHELOR  OF  THE   ALBANY.    By 

the  Author  of  the  "  Falcon  Family"  .  .  .  37£ 
L  WHIM,  AND  ITS  CONSEQUENCES.  By  G.  P.  R. 

JAMES,  Esq 25 

IIENZI,  THE  LAST  OF  THE  TRIBUNES.    By  Sir  E. 

BULWER  LYTTON 25 

COWRIE  ;   OR,  THE  KINO'S  PLOT.    By  G.  P.  R. 

JAMES,  Esq 25 

lELF-DEVOTION  j  OR,  THE  HISTORY  OF  KATH- 

KKINE  RANDOLPH.  By  Miss  CAMPBELL  .  .  25 
,IFE  AND  ADVENTURES  OF  JACK  OF 

THE   MILL,    COMMONLY   CALLKD   LORD  OTH- 

MILL  J  CREATED,  FOR  HIS  EMINENT  SERVICES,  *  ' 
''*  BARON  WALDKCK,  AND  KNIGHT  OF  KITCOTTIB: 

FIRESIDE  STORY.    By  W  HOWITT       .       .  1*} 


HAROLD,  THE  LAST  OF  THE  SAXON  KINGS.  By 
Sir  E.  BULWER  LYTTON  ....  60 

BROTHERS  AND  SISTERS :  A  TALB  OF  Do- 
MESTIC  LIFE.  By  Miss  BREMER.  Translated 
from  the  Original  Unpublished  Manuscript,  by 
MARY  HOWITT 2f 

THE  NABOB  AT  HOME;  OR,  THB  RETURN 
FROM  INDIA 35 

THE  LOST  SHIP;  OR,  THE  ATLANTIC  STEAM 
ER.  By  Captain  NEALE 25 

THE  HAUNTED  MAN  AND  THB  GHOST'S 
BARGAIN  :  A  FANCY  FOB  CHRISTMAS- TIMS.  By 
CHARLES  DICKENS 06$ 

HOME  INFLUENCE  :  A  TALB  FOR  MOTHERS 
AND  DAUGHTERS.  By  GRACE  AGUILAR  .  T» 

ERNEST  MALTRAVERS.  By  Sir  K  BUL 
WER  LYTTON 95 

ALICE  ;  OR,  THE  MYSTERIES  :  A  SEQUEL  TO  "  ERN 
EST  MALTRAVERS."  ByE.  BULWER  LYTTON  25 

SELF-CONTROL.    By  MARY  BRUNTON      .        .  25 

THE  HOME ;  OR,  FAMILY  CARES  AND  FAMILY 
JOYS.  By  Miss  BREMER 131 

SIR  THEODORE  BROUGHTON,  OB.LAUBBL 
WATER.  By  G.  P.  R.  JAMES,  Esq.  .  .  .86 

VANITY  FAIR:  A  NOYEL   WITHOUT  A  HBRO; 

BEING  PEN  AND  PENCIL  SKETCHES  OF  ENGLISH 

SOCIETY.    By  W.  M.  THACKERAY  .        .      91  00 

THE  LAST  OF  THE  FAIRIES:  A  CHRIST 
MAS  TALE.  By  G.  P.  R.  JAMES,  Esq.  .  .  124 

THE  PEASANT  AND  HIS  LANDLORD.  By 
the  Baroness  KNORRING.  Translated  by  MARY 
HOWITT 50 

THE  LAST  OF  THE  BARONS.  By  Sir  E. 
BULWER  LYTTON 25 

JANE  EYRE,  AN  AUTOBIOGRAPHY.  Edited  by 
CURRER  BELL  ....  .  25 

MIDSUMMER  EVE:  A  FAIRY  TALE  OF.  LOVE. 
By  Mrs.  S.  C.  HALL 25 

THE  PILGRIMS  OF  THE  RHINE.    By  Sir 

E.  BULWER  LYTTON 124 

THE  TENANT  OF  WILDFELL  HALL.    By 

ACTON  BELL 50 

FOREST  DAYS  :  A  ROMANCE  OF  OLD  TIMES.    By 

G.  P.  R.  JAMES,  Esq 124 

WUTHERING  HEIGHTS.    By  ELLIS  BELL  .  50 
ADAM  BROWN,  THE  MERCHANT.    By  HORACE 

SMITH 124 

ANGELA.     By  Mrs.  MARSH 75 

THE  CHILDREN  OF  THE  NEW  FOREST. 

By  Captain  MAKRYAT          ...  .  37J 

MARY  GROVER;  OR,  THE  TRUSTING  WIFE    A 

DOMESTIC  TEMPERANCE  TALE.    By  CHARLES 

BURDETT      .        . 30 

THE  BIRTHRIGHT.     By  Mrs.  GORE        .        .  12* 
NEW  SKETCHES  OF  EVERY-DAY  LIFE  : 

A  DIARY  ;  also,  STRIFE  AND  PEACE.    By  MJM 

BREMER.    Translated  by  MARY  HOWITT      .  12$ 
ARABELLA  STUART  :  A  ROMANCE  OF  ENGLISH 

HISTORY.     By  G.  P.  R.  JAMES,  Esq.  .        .        .12$ 
THE  UNLOVED  ONE  :  A  DSMESTIC  STORY.   By 

Mrs.  HOFLAND 1*J 

ARTHUR.    By  EUGENE  SUE.    Translated  by  P 

F.  CHRISTIN,  Esq ** 

NOW  AND  THEN.    By  SAMUEI  WAJWEN      fO 
MARGARET  GRAHAM.    By  ft  I  > 


